Exchange with Noam Chomsky on Exterminationism and Revisioni

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
grenadier
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:07 am

Exchange with Noam Chomsky on Exterminationism and Revisioni

Postby grenadier » 1 decade 1 year ago (Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:24 pm)

Hello,
I've been sent this exchange between Faurisson and Chomsky which has been posted at Mr.Smiths blog and I thought I'd share it with CODOH readers.

Saturday, September 27, 2008
Exchange with Noam Chomsky on Exterminationism and Revisionism
Robert Faurisson writes to Noam Chomsky, August 18
[Faurisson’s messages are translated from the French]

Dear Sir,

I am thinking of sending you, by separate message, three articles that you will perhaps find of interest. It seems to me that, since the late 1970s, both the exterminationist position and the Zionist position have become more and more untenable except, of course, with recourse to trickery and violence. May I ask what you, at your end, think of this?

Regards, RF


Noam Chomsky replies, August 19

Thanks for sending.
It's true that the Zionist position has become less defensible, but I never thought that the “exterminationist” position was in doubt.


Robert Faurisson, August 19

Thanks for answering.

I did say, for my part, that “it seems to me that, since the late 1970s, both the exterminationist position and the Zionist position have become more and more untenable”.

I take the liberty of sending you, attached hereto, my text on “The Victories of Revisionism”. In it you will note how the main exponents of the exterminationist thesis, whilst bold enough to maintain the veracity of that thesis, have exhibited growing difficulty in upholding it with logical arguments.

Hilberg’s turnaround was striking: whereas, in 1961, he held that Hitler had issued two orders to destroy the Jews, he later (in the 80s), formally acknowledged the worth of certain “questions” put by Faurisson and others, and then seriously revised his own position: he no longer spoke of orders but… of “consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy”. Hilberg, of course, brought forth no proof in support of such a hazy argument. Here we are, decidedly, no longer in the scientific realm.

Whereas Michel de Boüard had held that the revisionists were despicable beings, he ended up, in 1986, making amends, terming the exterminationist dossier “rotten” and paying tribute to the revisionists’ “quite carefully done critical studies”.

Whereas it had been held that the sources for the study of the gas chambers were many and solid, Arno Mayer, in 1988, ended up writing that they were “at once rare and unreliable”.

Whereas Klarsfeld and Pressac had held that there existed so very much proof, Pressac ended up deeming the whole dossier of the exterminationist thesis to be “rotten” and good only for the “rubbish bins of history”.

I could go on at length with such examples. In scientific (or allegedly scientific) circles the embarrassment is obvious. It’s for this reason that the repression of revisionism is worsening. “When there’s no proof to show, the cudgel is used. If the cudgel is used, it’s because there are no arguments”. It’s also for this reason that, in its ludicrous forms and unprecedented commercial and religious proportions, a deafening propaganda is now deployed in favour of a thesis which, over the years, has become more and more untenable.

You will, I think, have noted my discretion in your regard. If I have decided to break a near thirty years’ silence and if I finally wrote to you yesterday, it’s because I’ve thought that, in the face of such a rout of the rational approach in historical research, I needed the opinion of a man of your calibre.

I thank you for your attention. Regards.


NC, August 20

To repeat, I do not think there is serious doubt about the basic character of the Nazi Judeocide, though unlike French mimics of Zhdanov and Goebbels, I strongly oppose granting the state the right to determine Historical Truth and to punish deviation from its pronouncements.


RF, August 20

I shall repeat myself as well and say: I think that the high priests of exterminationism or of the “Judeocide” resemble the Catholic priests who persist, of course, in spouting the articles of their FAITH but who, de facto, no longer appeal to REASON.

Fifty years ago, priests were still teaching the faithful that the existence of God was a matter of both REASON and FAITH and, for example, in the catechism, children learned the four PROOFS of God’s existence, the first of these being the order of the world (“There can be no watch without a great watchmaker”). Today, the Catholic priests lay it down as a principle that God exists and no longer appeal to REASON and PROOF. Why is this, if not because their proof no longer convinces them themselves?

Today, the high priests of exterminationism or of the “Judeocide” no longer take the trouble to resort to PROOF. They recite their basic catechism but no longer try to bring forth a single PROOF of the existence of an order to exterminate the Jews nor a single PROOF of the existence of an extermination plan, nor a single PROOF of the existence of any relevant instructions or monitoring or budget thereof, and they are incapable of showing us what the crime weapon par excellence may have looked like or how it may have worked. When asked to “show us or draw us an Auschwitz homicidal gas chamber”, they no longer try to answer. When told to “give us the name of a single person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz, with proof of that killing” they no longer reply. However, do remember that, in the past, we used to get names (that of Simone Jacob, for example, who would turn out to be Simone Veil). Why such a profound change if not because “there is serious doubt about the basic character of the Nazi Judeocide”, that is, a doubt about the will to physically exterminate the Jews, about the magical gas chambers and about the six or however many million victims? At the base (your word “basic”) of the mystery of the “Judeocide”, there is that holy trinity.

Can you explain this to me? Can you offer anything that you yourself would call a PROOF? Can you tell me why there have been so many patent LIES on the part of my opponents, so many manipulations of texts, facts and figures whilst, in the work by your humble servant on the essential question of the gas chambers, no one has been able to find a trace either of 1) rashness, 2) negligence, 3) deliberately overlooking anything or 4) lying?

You say you strongly oppose the State’s being granted the right to determine historical Truth and punishing deviations. So be it; how has the State come to be granted these rights? It hasn’t been by some quirk of history. It has been by a sort of vital necessity that, even in countries without any specific anti-revisionist law, the State, in reality, represses revisionism. Consider the ignoble examples of the United States and Canada in the Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf cases. In France, who was it who, starting in 1986, waged a dogged campaign, crowned with success, to get the State to exercise those exorbitant rights if not chief rabbi René-Samuel Sirat, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Georges Wellers and Laurent Fabius? Those people set off on a bad path: they laid the postulate – backing it up with threats – that two and two were six (or six million?) and, consequently, as the lie could be upheld only by still more lies, they and their successors have sunk themselves into an abyss of lies. For my part, I’ve had no need to lie.

What do you think of this? Regards.

NC, August 20

I understand your position, but do not agree.

[end of correspondence Faurisson-Chomsky]


Just a few comments of my own; notice that Chomsky is:

1. Unwilling(or unable?) to discuss any of Faurisson's points. He is totally evasive although cowardly repeating like a mantra that the ridiculous holohoax storyline is not in any serious doubt.

2. Obviously enough, there is some room for doubt regarding whether or not Chomsky really believes the HoloHoax story is in fact solid. Even if he privately thinks there are problems with it, he would never publicly aknowledge that as consequences could be terrible for him professionally.

3. Another way to look at it is that although Chomsky opposes granting the state the right to determine Historical Truth and to punish deviation from its pronouncements, he makes it sound as though discussing the Holocaust, quite unlike any other historical issues, is kind of absurd, since he claims there are no serious doubts re the Nazi Judeocide. This is problematic because it means Holocaust revisionism must work in a very hostile environment and that is a sort of censorship in its own right. In the USA, there are at present no anti-revisionism laws B-U-T discussing the H is pretty much impossible, unless one doesn't mind being ruined and smeared. The first step in the direction of truth is to rid the world of such laws but much more will have to be done in order for holocaust revisionism to be included into Holocaust studies. When that finally happens, it'll be the end of the hoax. That's why I don't like Chomsky's attitude much. In a way, he too, marginalizes H revisionism.
Comments invited.

Barrington James
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:26 pm

Postby Barrington James » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:42 am)

The reason Noam Chomsky is still alive and still able to work is that he is too clever to be trapped into saying anything that would cause one or both of these events to happen to him. It’s a fate that many others have chosen to either ignore or take a gamble on and many of these brave souls, as we all know, have paid a horrible price for trying to spread the whole truth instead of disguising their real thoughts : beatings, death, death threats, jail, huge fines, loss of a job, and/or public humiliation.

I would never ever judge anyone for taking the path that Chomsky has taken. I, too, would never risk the future life and happiness of my family and friends for the cause of “affirming revisionism".

I am happy to know the world has people like Graf, Zundel, Finkelstein and so many others who have done so much to spread the truth, many of whom write to this site, and I am sorry that they have suffered so much, but I will spread the truth in my way and only my way.

I grant Chomsky the same right.

By the way the following may help explain my position and that of others who do not wish to get totally involved in the truth about the holocaust. I believe the truth of the holocaust is tied in with so many other great lies such as the real causes of WW1 and WW2,and every war we have had since , the present banking crisis in the USA, the creation of Israel, the 100 year battle for oil, and even the so-called Russian, French and British Revolutions, that few people really understand, that I just don’t think merely telling the truth about the holocaust, as this site is determined to do, in itself, will ever free the minds of the masses to the extent that they will be able to understand what really happened in the Nazi camps.

We cannot expect people to understand little stupid obvious lies such as the gassing holocaust, when their entire way of life is based on lies. Am I just copping out? Convince me otherwise.

B.J.
You can fool too many of the people most of the time.

Greg Gerdes
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:03 pm

Postby Greg Gerdes » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:59 am)

Noam is "too clever?"

I would use the words - liar, coward, hypocrite and fraud.


You wouldn't judge Noam for the path he's taken?

I would, and I do.

And I judge him to be a liar, coward, hypocrite and fraud.

"We cannot expect people to understand little stupid obvious lies such as the gassing holocaust, when their entire way of life is based on lies."


Very true.


However, the true measure of a mans character is his willingness to speak the truth, even at the expense of his reputation. And by that measure, Noam not only proves he's got no character, but cannot even be called a man.

He claims to be a seeker and speaker of the truth. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He uses that reputation as a weapon against the truth. People look up to him; respect his opinions on all things, including the hoax. When Noam says the holohoax happened, people accept his position, use it as evidence in making up their minds for their own position on the matter.

He's a fraud that influences people to believe that this lie is actually the truth.

That makes him a tool of the liars. (He's no different than Shermer.)

And that makes him an enemy of the truth.

You Mr. James, can "grant him that right."

As for me - I hold him accountable for his role in suppressing the truth and perpetuating the lie. A lie that is being used as a club to wage wars that have killed millions of innocents - and will kill many more.


So as to your questions Mr. James - "Am I just copping out?"

I would have to say - yes.
Last edited by Greg Gerdes on Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:05 am, edited 3 times in total.

Barrington James
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:26 pm

Postby Barrington James » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:47 pm)

Greg- Would mind being a little more specific in your claims about Noam? What are some of his exact lies? What makes you say he is a coward, a fraud and a hypocrite?
You can fool too many of the people most of the time.

KostasL
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:27 am

Postby KostasL » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:28 pm)

Barrington James wrote:Greg- Would mind being a little more specific in your claims about Noam? What are some of his exact lies? What makes you say he is a coward, a fraud and a hypocrite?


One would expect from a person like Noam Chomsky, to know the truth or at least have serious doubts about the Holocaust lie.

But instead of this he is totally evasive and he also claims that the ridiculous holohoax storyline is not in any serious doubt (as Grenadier noticed).

I think that this is what makes Greg say that he is a coward, a fraud and a hypocrite. This is what i thought, too, after reading the initial post of this topic. 8)
When you realize that the Holocaust is a LIE, then all of a sudden, ALL your questions, ALL bizarre and strange things, disappear, and ALL things make sense, at last.

Barrington James
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:26 pm

Postby Barrington James » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:38 am)

The Noam Chomsky dilemma is certainly one that has very high stakes. The fact of the matter, as hard as for anyone living outside of North America to understand, is that anyone, and I mean anyone and everyone in North America, who suggests that the Nazis did not intend on gassing every Jew they could catch and that they, the Nazis, did in fact murder close to six million Jews, one way or another, is either a mad man , a demented admirer of Hitler, a neo-Nazis or just a plain fool.

The carry over of this ridiculous but effective WW2 propaganda, the present Western media, our schools and, of course, Hollywood, have all but completely made this a fact of life in North America.

So how does one operate in a situation like that? How can one be taken seriously and perhaps do some good in the world with regards to, for example, fairness for the Palestinians, as Chomsky has tried to do, or even fairness for the holocaust survivors, as Norm Finkelstein tried to do, if one is to “deny the holocaust” and thus be immediately labeled as some kind of nut as above or perhaps even killed?

I believe that Chomsky must believe that if he is to somehow make this a better world with respect to any issue other than the holocaust, then he should keep his opinion on the holocaust to himself. He does not wish to commit “suicide” over a relatively small matter of the holocaust gassing myth, which will eventually be exposed for the nonsense that it is, when there are larger matters to be solved which can and will effect mankind forever.

What I am saying is that there are larger issues at play in the world other than the stupid and cruel holocaust myths of gassing six million Jews: global warming, world poverty and disease, the 100 year old war for oil, the 400 year old ongoing attempt of Great Britain to Rule the waves and the world, the 200 year old on going attempt at American Imperialism, and the efforts of almost every country in the world to make itself better and richer at the expense of some weaker country, and, of course, Chomsky’s favorite topic, Peace and Justice in the Middle East, are just some of the problems that he would like to help solve in the time he and the world have left.

It is my opinion that he does not wish to sacrifice himself on the tiny problems of the holocaust myths and sabotage his own attempt to bring clarity and hope to our more important problems of the world. And that is why he appears so cagey when asked direct questions of the holocaust.

By the way Greg, you may notice that Ahmadinejad is answering the holocaust question very cleverly lately. He is not falling for the trap that some have laid for Chomsky either. Smart guy.

Cheers B.J.
You can fool too many of the people most of the time.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9911
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:00 pm)

I tend to agree with the assessment that Chomsky is a human rights fraud. Not to mention his judeo-centric Marxist ideas which have been historically proven to be unworkable.

Men and women are in jail, others have been financially ruined by the judeo-supremacist 'holocaust' scam. If there was ever a time to speak up, it is now. Chomsky benefits from the scam just like others, he is not a human rights champion by any stretch.

Academia has become a system of nepotism in which judeo-supremacists make sure that they are dominant, Chomsky is a classic example. The 'holocaust' scam enables them to get away with it.

While Chomsky supposedly supports Palestinian rights, he avoids the very essence of hatemongering / racist Zionism which enables the slaughter and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians he supposedly supports. That essence is the impossible 'holocaust' story.

To claim he is simply being pragmatic is in conflict with his supposed espousal of human rights. He doesn't walk like he talks.

Has Chomsky emphatically spoke out against the imprisonment of those who scrutinize the absurd 'holocaust'? No.
Article 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter explicitly states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

So where is Chomsky?

What I am saying is that there are larger issues at play in the world other than the stupid and cruel holocaust myths of gassing six million Jews ...
Wrong. No there are no "larger issues at play".

The 'holocaust' fraud is what drives the destructive Zionist/US policies in the Middle East and worldwide.

Look at the 'outrage' and warmongering against 'holocaust' questioning Iran.

All US foreign policy issues are formed largely upon what is good for violent 'Israel'.

Note that the US State Dept. now assesses each country based upon the canard of 'level of antisemitism', which of course means whether that country allows criticism of the stupid 'holocaust', or whether that country supports preferrential treatment of Jews, and whether that country supports violent Zionist policies generally.

The use of the Orwellian EU Thought Crime laws which are applied throughout Europe are favored by judeo-supremacists. And what Thought Crime do they demand be enforced rigorously?

The US is broke, but US budgetary packages often embed additional aid to 'Israel'.

The US is in the midst of an incredible 'Wall Street' financial crisis, yet the entire US Congress takes a day off for Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year.

off topic asides:
Global warming? What global warming? Global temperatures have dropped for the last 10 years while the alleged 'global warming' culprit, CO2, rose.

War for oil? Wrong. India, China, and Russia are scoring the biggest oil deals. The US had much better oils deals before Israel demanded that the US attack.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Greg Gerdes
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:03 pm

Postby Greg Gerdes » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:42 pm)

Mr. James, I think Hanover and KostasL summed up my feeling exactly, so I won't repeat them.

However, I will say again that I believe Chomsky knows the truth and is a knowing, willing, maliciously active tool of the holocaust industry.

He is no different than Shermer.

That makes him a liar, hypocrite, coward and fraud.

And frankly, I don't know how anyone can make apologies for him.

And I also cannot believe that someone on this forum would refer to the holocaust gassing myth as "a relatively small matter."

Strange.

Greg Gerdes
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:03 pm

Postby Greg Gerdes » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:51 pm)

Hannover:

"If there was ever a time to speak up, it is now."

Exactly.

Barrington James
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:26 pm

Postby Barrington James » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:12 pm)

Hannover - Thanks for you repky. Perhaps I had better explain myself. It was not my intention to denigrate the tremendous work of all those who have sacrificed so much to expose the myths of the holocaust: the gassing and extermination plans of the Nazis, as they acknowledged the tragedy of WW2, including the catastrophe that happened to the Jewish population of pre WW2 Europe. I admire their work, their determination and their courage for doing so. It is my hope that eventually the world will thank them for doing so. The point I was trying to make is that we would be better off exposing the liars: the industrialists, bankers, politicians, communists and Zionists who perpetuated the myths associated with WW2 for what and who they are, rather than the myth itself.

I didn’t say the holocaust myth was small. How could it be? After all it has been the greatest propaganda weapon of the so called Allies all during WW2 war and after. It helped create Israel and destroy the Palestinians by making the world feel pity the poor Jews, it has been used to shame and disgrace and help destroy the pride of every German since WW2, it has helped justify the criminal, sinful, vicious, inhumane behavior of Allies’ terror bombing of Germany and Japan during WW2, to justify the totally useless war itself that killed 50 million and left the world worse off than before, and, for the last 60 years, to justify the cruel bombing by the USA of 20 or more countries, including ,of course, the cowardly bombing of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq Lebanon, several times, and soon to be Iran. Moreover, it has greatly helped paint a ridiculous picture of the phony good versus evil model of the world, with us, of course, being the good guys, who have just happened to have destroyed or looted much of the world in our innocent drive to make the world a better place.

However the holocaust myth of gassing is still just a weapon of murder and terror for American, British and Zionist Israeli Imperialism. It is not the drive or greed or philosophy behind their wars and terror and exploitation. If these people did not have this weapon, the myths of the holocaust, to justify their evil ways, they would have used some other means to justify their atrocities, just as they have done in Haiti, Lebanon, and Iraq and most of Africa, all of Central America and South America, and dozens of other places of conquest. and exploitation. For example, they all but destroyed Brazil and Argentina, with the World Bank and IMF and they are presently on their way to destroying the middle class of the USA with Wall Street lies and greed and kill Chavez and anyone else who stands up to them. Where there is a will there is a way. We humans are good at that.
However, I do agree with you that without the holocaust myths, their job of conning the credulous masses to be their gun fodder and/or executors of their plans for world conquest would have been more difficult. Unfortunately, they, the bad guys who rule this world, still would have had their way, and they will continue to do so until they are exposed. After all we had the greatest slaughter of humans in history, WW1, long before the holocaust myths were created.

So, as I see it, our biggest problem is not to expose the holocaust myths, although this would do much for the freedom of our minds and allow the masses to think of alternate ways of solving human disputes. Our biggest problem by far is basic human ignorance in all world matters, not just the holocasut, as important it is, particularly at this point in time.

American ignorance on all worldly matters, not the holocaust myths, is the main reason the brutes of the world have been to operate so freely. This is led to so much destruction of the world by the USA. Worse still, the poor brainwashed Americans are about to elect a President that will be either McCain, a hard core liar and jerk, who would be far worse than Bush, believe it or not, who would most certainly get us involved in a major war, who is backed up by the lunatic Right, the Zionists and Sarah Palin, who reminds me so much of the hideous “death squad” Ronald Reagan, or the other choice, Obama, who, during his last presidential debate, threatened Pakistan, and who is a protégé of Wall Street and Brezezinski, the destroyer of Afghanistan. Some choice, some country, some future.

Our lesser but crucial problems involve global warming, world poverty and starvation, disease, global pollution, ignorance, Zionism, human greed, Wall Street, the religious right in the USA, American Imperialism and Russia’s determination to stop it.

The destruction of the holocaust myths would be a great beginning for world truth, no doubt about that, but I believe there are more important problems for world survival that we must attend to immediately or we are doomed. So, in my opinion, by all means, continue the good fight, expose the myths of the holocaust, however keep in, mind that the are only a weapon of the problem with mankind, they are not the problem.
You can fool too many of the people most of the time.

Greg Gerdes
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:03 pm

Postby Greg Gerdes » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:53 pm)

Very good post Mr. James.

Arrow Of Truth
Member
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:32 pm

Postby Arrow Of Truth » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:37 pm)

Chomsky isn't a zealous promoter of the legend. He's not a Lipstadt or a neocon. On the holocaust promoter radar he's a peripheral figure and should be above the scope -- not of sharp criticism -- but of total denunciation as a 'fraud' so to speak. I don't think he is. Thinning out the denunciations to the active promoters only, is advisable for our criticisms to carry weight.

Likely he doesn't pursue that line of reasoning for a blend of political and tribal reasons. As a critic of Zionism focused upon asserting some kind of short term influence there's really nothing beyond his vision but to relent to the standard account. Regardless, the holocaust as a legend based on emotion will gradually ease, it won't occur via an instant mass revelation.

grenadier
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:07 am

Postby grenadier » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:11 pm)

Very good posts Barrington James, particularly your second one.

To clarify my position;
I'm not advocating that Chomsky or, say, Finkelstein, denounce the Holocaust as the bunch of horrible lies that it is, since in any case, I think they either believe in the story or desperately want to.

The problem with Chomsky and others is that he doesn't say a damned thing about ending Holocaust exceptionalism, in other words, that the Holocaust must be treated as any other historical issue with dissenting views included into holocaust studies, that an open debate must be had which includes all views. Allow people to know the other side's arguments and decide for themselves. Clearly the Hoaxocost industry doesn't dare to allow that, since they know fully well the Holocaust dossier doesn't have a leg to stand on. It wants people firmly plugged to the Matrix, consensus they must have. Since the Holocaust is dogmatic and doubt is the killer of all dogma...

It's this bizarre exceptionalism that truly must end if TRUTH is to ever have a chance.
Important scholars that are truly committed to free speech and to the freedom of inquiry should be able to do that. Finkelstein of all people should get this, since he himself fell victim to the same dirty tactics that have time and again been used against revisionists.
Instead he takes cheap shots at revisionists and so I smell a rat there.

It's interesting to note that non-Jewish scholars, writers, etc, who have been constantly denouncing American imperialism, Zionism, the finantial system and what have you, will also, from time to time, take a cheap shot at revisionists, a punch below the waist.
Even Justin Raimondo from Antiwar did that. Yes guys, the holocaust is indeed the ultimate taboo subject in the West and one must be unplugged from the Matrix to realize just how bizarre the whole situation is...

Back to Chomsky and Finkelstein, have you people noticed their take on the pro-Israel lobby in the USA? Both say the lobby is a lobby like any other with no real influence in highjacking American foreign policy in the middle East. Their arguments are weak and I wonder why both have taken this path. In the end my conclusion is that tribal thing must be at play, both are Jewish and neither wants to be associated to a recurring theme of "anti-semitism";
the divided loyalty of some Jews.

Barrington james wrote:

What I am saying is that there are larger issues at play in the world other than the stupid and cruel holocaust myths of gassing six million Jews: global warming, world poverty and disease, the 100 year old war for oil, the 400 year old ongoing attempt of Great Britain to Rule the waves and the world, the 200 year old on going attempt at American Imperialism, and the efforts of almost every country in the world to make itself better and richer at the expense of some weaker country, and, of course, Chomsky’s favorite topic, Peace and Justice in the Middle East, are just some of the problems that he would like to help solve in the time he and the world have left.


Problem is Barrington, the Hoax makes it very difficult to discuss many of the above subjects with objectivity, be it Chomsky’s "Peace and Justice in the Middle East" or WWII, since the HoaxoCo$t lies get IN THE WAY. Don't believe me? Here is an excerpt from Justin Raimondo's analysis of the McCain X Obama debate:

But all that is forgotten when Lehr asks his next question: Iran—is it a threat?

McCain turns on a dime, and his first concern is that Iran represents “an existential threat to the state of Israel, and, by the way, to the rest of the region, as a new arms race starts in the region. Then the pandering: We cannot allow a second holocaust.


:roll:

Greg Gerdes
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:03 pm

Postby Greg Gerdes » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:08 pm)

Saturday, September 27, 2008
Exchange with Noam Chomsky on Exterminationism and Revisionism
Robert Faurisson writes to Noam Chomsky, August 18
[Faurisson’s messages are translated from the French]

Dear Sir,

I am thinking of sending you, by separate message, three articles that you will perhaps find of interest. It seems to me that, since the late 1970s, both the exterminationist position and the Zionist position have become more and more untenable except, of course, with recourse to trickery and violence. May I ask what you, at your end, think of this?

Regards, RF


Noam Chomsky replies, August 19

Thanks for sending.

It's true that the Zionist position has become less defensible, but I never thought that the “exterminationist” position was in doubt.


Not in doubt huh?

Well, let's look at what one of the biggest zionists tools, the proven liar, hypocrite, coward and fraud -

Michael Shermer himself admits about just how "in doubt" the exterminationist's position is.


The following death toll figures are from Shermer's - Denying History, page 128:

Auschwitz - 1.1 million

Treblinka - 900,000

Belzec - 600,000

Chelmno - 152,000

Majdanek - 60,000


So even Shermer himself admits that:

96% of the Majdanek holocaust didn't happen.

80% of the Belzec holocaust didn't happen.

72.5% of the Auschwitz holocaust didn't happen.

70% of the Treblinka holocaust didn't happen.

52.5% of the Chelmno holocaust didn't happen.


Of course we all know that the above death toll figures have not only been further reduced, but are still dropping like a stone.


And we all also know how thoroughly the official Sobibor holocaust story is currently getting ravaged. (Even Meuhlenkamp, before I slapped him off of the topix and VNN forums and sent him running back to rodoh with his tail between his legs, was admitting that the figure for Sobibor was no higher than 150,000 - a 40% reduction from the official version.)

So one has to conclude that Chomsky is either ignorant, lying, or both.

disillusioned
Member
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 7:19 am

Postby disillusioned » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:48 am)

Well... he is an anarchist.. and they cling to the holocaust as an example of what state authority can lead to... they need the holocaust to justify their ideology.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hektor and 4 guests