What Chomsky wrote in self-defense

William S. Lear rael at zopyra.com
Thu Oct 29 15:55:56 PST 1998

On Thu, October 29, 1998 at 11:17:05 (EST) Apsken at aol.com writes:
><< He is simply pointing out that a few idiots claimed it was a huge scandal
>that he was defending the right to speak of someone with whose ideas he had
>little familiarity, and that this was absolutely nuts. >>
>Thus far Bill Lear has chosen name-calling, lawyerly evasions, and theological
>hairsplitting in preference to discussion of political issues that he snatched
>out of context from my private off-line correspondence and subsequent
>additions. ...

Calling you a liar is not "name-calling", merely accurate identification. I have evaded nothing, contrary to your claim --- it is you who have refused to support your baseless allegations time and again. I have also quoted you scrupulously and fully from what was posted here, taking nothing out of context.

> .... Inquiring minds ask whether he will be as quick to question Saint
>Noam's veracity in light of these contradictory statements or, as I predict,
>he will instead continue to heap insults on Chomsky's critics while dodging
>direct challenges to his own hypocritical rants.

Which direct challenge was offered? How was I hypocritical? Which responses have I dodged?

>Chomsky to The Nation [thanks to LP for posting]:
>"In this statement, I made it explicit that would not discuss Faurisson's
>work, having only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little interest
>in it)."
>Robert Faurisson on Chomsky's statement to him:
>"Noam Chomsky, the famous professor (of Jewish origin) at Massachusetts
>Institute of Technology, is aware of the research work I do on what
>Revisionist Historians term 'the gas chamber and genocide hoax.' He informed
>me that Gitta Sereny had mentioned my name in the above article, and stated
>that I had been referred to 'in an extraordinarily unfair way.' "
>Which was it? Limited familiarity and lack of interest, or sufficient
>familiarity with his Holocaust-denying colleague to brand one scholarly anti-
>Nazi critic's evaluation "unfair"?

Though we should remember the source of the quote, there is plainly no contradiction. Chomsky has "sufficient familiarity" with the work to conclude, I think reasonably, that Faurisson is no Nazi (a demented and sad excuse for a human, perhaps, but not a Nazi), and at the same time have "limited familiarity" with it so that he would be reluctant to discuss the work in any detail. There is, again, obviously no "contradiction" here, only Ken's pathetic and desperate attempt to smear.

So now Faurisson is Chomsky's "Holocaust-denying colleague", which would imply that Chomsky, being a fellow member, must also be a Holocaust denier. Talk about some twisted name-calling...


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list