Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Chomsky's support for Holocaust deniers

61 views
Skip to first unread message

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 14, 2002, 6:39:01 PM1/14/02
to
The following letter, dated 30 November 1979, was sent to the British
periodical The New Statesman by the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, in
response to an article exposing this particular form of anti-Semitism by
Gitta Sereny, 2 November 1979. The magazine very properly declined to
publish this letter or similar ones from the Nazi apologists Richard Verrall
and Arthur Butz. Note the opening paragraph of Faurisson's anti-Jewish
diatribe. It is evident that Chomsky's links with this type of Nazism run
deep and extends to active co-operation.

I reproduce this revolting and evil missive in full merely because I wish
this ng to be aware of the character and sympathies of those Chomsky regards
as 'relatively apolitical sorts of liberals', and whose cause he defends in
public. Once again, we can infer that Chomsky will speak out for any cause,
however vile, dishonest and murderous, provided only that said cause be
anti-Jewish and genocidal.

"Dear Sir:

"re: "The Men Who Whitewash Hitler", 2 November 1979

"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."

"I have just read the article in question, and it is an insult to all those
who -- without political motivation -- devote themselves to the discovery of
historical truth, by means of routine historical research. It is a special
insult and outrage to the memory of my fellow countryman Paul Rassinier,
himself a former concentration camp inmate who died in 1967. Rassinier
sacrificed his life to the service of truth, and to the denunciation of an
enormous historical lie.

" "There is no proof whatsoever that Nero set fire to Rome." The historian
who first said that did not want to "whitewash" Nero; he was only concerned
with the truth. in the same way, we do not try to "whitewash" Hitler when we
say that there is not the slightest proof that he ordered the
"extermination" of the Jews; or even that such "extermination" took place.
Certainly persecution existed; but there was no "extermination," "genocide"
or "Holocaust."

"Gitta Sereny is unable to offer a single item of evidence to the contrary.
She does mention N¸rnberg document NO-365, but this "document" is not even
signed, and is therefore worthless as evidence. She mentions the "Commissar
Order"; but clearly she has not read the document, for the meaning of it is
not what she thinks. She ought to take a look at NOKW-1076. She goes on to
mention the "Aktion Reinhardt," but again, this does not imply any mass
killing; it merely refers to the confiscation of the property of deported
Jews.

"She quotes a letter published in Die Zeit, written by Professor Broszat.
Again, one wonders if she read this letter, for it is dated 19 August 1960,
not 1962. It appears on page 16. This letter states quite clearly that there
were no mass killings in "gas chambers" either in Dachau or anywhere else in
the former Reich. May I remind you that up until 1960 we were supposed to
have thousands of proofs, confessions, and eye-witness evidence, that there
were mass killings at Dachau, Ravensbr¸ck, Buchenwald, and so on. Therefore,
we now have to acknowledge that the authors of such confessions (Suhren,
Schwarzhuber, Dr. Treite ... ) must have been subjected to "persuasive
questioning" on the part of their French, British, and American jailers.
This should give food for thought, at least as far as the "confessions" are
concerned.

"Rudolf Hss (not to be confused with Rudolf Hess, still imprisoned in
Spandau) was one of the three successive commandants of Auschwitz. He is the
only one to have left confessions." These "confessions" are preposterous in
the extreme. Besides the Treblinka and Belzec camps, he has invented a third
camp at Wolzek -- a place which cannot be found on any map of Poland! Hss
was handed over to the Polish authorities by the British. After a travesty
of justice masquerading as a trial, he was hanged. But while he was awaiting
death, his communist jailers allowed him write his "confessions" in the best
traditions of the Moscow showtrials.

"To explain away the contradictions and the absurdities of his earlier
declarations to the British interrogators, the communists allowed him to
recall that he had been tortured by the British Field Security Police "with
riding-whip and alcohol" and then tortured some more by a British major, who
was also a magistrate, at Minden-on-Weser. Hss signed his affidavit
(PS-3868) for the British on 5 April 1946 -- an affidavit written in
American-English, which there is no evidence he could understand. Ten days
later, Hss appeared as a witness before the International Military Tribunal
at N¸rnberg, and his "evidence" on Auschwitz astonished the entire world. In
actual fact, this "evidence" was not uttered by Hss himself, but consisted
of an American prosecutor reading to him selected passages from his
affidavit, and Hss blankly answering "Yes." According to many people, Hss
was in a state of "schizophrenic apathy."

"Regarding the tortures systematically inflicted on the German soldiers and
officers by the Allies, one should read Sir Reginald Paget's book Manstein:
His Campaign & His Trial (Collins, 1951). On page 109 one finds that the
(U.S.) Simpson Inquiry Commission "reported among other things that of the
139 cases they had investigated, 137 had had their testicles permanently
destroyed by kicks received from the American War Crimes Investigating
Team."

"But torture is not the only way history can be distorted. Many journalists
and other writers simply pretend that the accused has made statements which
they never in fact made! To give one example, the general public believes
that Sergeant Franz Gustav Wagner has cynically declared at Sao Paulo: "At
Sobibor we used to gas thousands of people, and this did not disturb me in
the least: it was my job." However, a paper, like Le Monde, which is
sometimes well-informed, has revealed that in fact Wagner had declared he
had never taken part in any assassination of Jews or any other inmate, but
that he was only doing his job. As you see, some journalists have decided
that "his job" was killing people.

"The journalists who do not care about truth are simply following the lead
of the judges and magistrates in every country (particularly Western
Germany) who, for the past 35 years, have taken it upon themselves to judge
"war criminals " (a phrase thought up by the victors to apply only to the
vanquished). The N¸rnberg International Tribunal itself has given us a model
of this indifference to the truth. Here are some extracts from its statutes:

"Article 19: "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence
( ... ) "

"Article 21: "The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common
knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof ( ... )"

"The Institute for Historical Review, PO Box 1306, Torrance, California
90505, USA, has offered a reward of $50,000 to anyone who can bring definite
proof that the Germans used "gas chambers" to kill Jews. Gitta Sereny might
be interested.

"Zyklon B is hydrocyanic acid; still used in France to disinfect ships. It
adheres strongly to surfaces. To enter a place which has been disinfected
with it, one has to wait nearly 24 hours for natural aeration (not
ventilation). Now, here is my question: How could the members of the
"Sonderkommando" enter the lethal "gas chamber" immediately after the death
of the victims, and while eating and drinking; that is to say, if I
understand correctly, without even a gas mask? How could they pull out with
their bare hands the thousands of cyanided corpses drenched in an atmosphere
of hydrocyanic acid? How could they cut hair, pull out teeth and so on, when
in an American prison gas chamber there are 40 operations which need to be
done (including partial neutralization of hydrocyanic acid by ammonia)
before going into the cubicle with gas masks, rubber gloves, and apron, in
order to carefully clean the corpse so that the doctor and his assistants
should not be poisoned? If the Germans had not cared about the health of the
"Sonderkommando" members, these men would have died on the spot, and so the
"gas chamber" would never have received its next batches of victims.

"The aerial photographs of Auschwitz recently published by the CIA show that
everything is in complete contradiction with everything we have been told by
the so-called eyewitnesses, about crowds of people waiting to be murdered,
and the heavy smoke perpetually rising from the crematorium chimneys.

"As for Sobibor and Treblinka, one should read Ms. Sereny's own book Into
That Darkness (AndrÈ Deutsch, 1974). In 70 hours of talks with Franz Stangl,
Ms. Sereny did not ask one question about the technicalities of the "gas
chambers." What kind of gas? What mechanism for gassing? What chemical
process? How many victims? How was it possible to enter right away? There is
not even one shred of evidence, nor one item of proof, that even one "gas
chamber" existed in either Sobibor or Treblinka. Ms. Sereny does not even
give the real plans of the camps!

"I am neither a former Nazi, nor a neo-Nazi. I hate fascism and any form of
persecution. But because I have declared that the "gas chambers" and
"genocide" are one and the same historical lie, I have been subjected to
abuse, I have been assaulted, I cannot give lectures in my university (even
though the behavior of my own students has been perfectly correct), I am
prosecuted. My life has become most difficult, but it does have purpose, and
I know that I shall go my own way. It is my duty.

Robert Faurisson"


--
OLIVER KAMM


David Martin

unread,
Jan 14, 2002, 7:58:00 PM1/14/02
to
For more on this foul and revolting subject I recommend
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/ww2_holocaust_revisionism.htm

---------
DC Dave
Author, "America's Dreyfus Affair, The Case of the Death of Vincent Foster"
"Upton Sinclair and Timothy McVeigh"
"Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression"
http://www.thebird.org/host/dcdave
News group: alt.thebird
"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nWJ08.2699$Oh1.7...@monolith.news.easynet.net...

Matthew Healey

unread,
Jan 14, 2002, 8:14:28 PM1/14/02
to

Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> The following letter, dated 30 November 1979, was sent to the British
> periodical The New Statesman by the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, in
> response to an article exposing this particular form of anti-Semitism by
> Gitta Sereny, 2 November 1979. The magazine very properly declined to
> publish this letter or similar ones from the Nazi apologists Richard Verrall
> and Arthur Butz. Note the opening paragraph of Faurisson's anti-Jewish
> diatribe. It is evident that Chomsky's links with this type of Nazism run
> deep and extends to active co-operation.

SNIP

I was under the impression NC defended this mans right to say whatever
he wished (fairynuff) and stressed that objections should be made by
appeals to fact and not sentiment. This is not the same Oliver as saying
'Chomsky supports Holocaust deniers'.

Be careful cos the claim "It is evident that Chomsky's links with this
type of Nazism run deep and extends to active co-operation" is not shown
to be true by the text you posted.

matt

:p

Rob Findlay

unread,
Jan 14, 2002, 10:53:42 PM1/14/02
to
In article <3C438274...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>,

Not only that but Monkey Man Kamm, also expects us to view Faurisson
himself as a credible source.

But don't mind the monkey man. He gets outed avery few weeks on his
BS, and then disapears for a while.


>matt
>
>:p


--

New flag as issued by the Office of "Fatherland Security". .
__________________________________________________________________
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| ****** ****** ****** ** ** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| ** ** ****** ****** ** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ** ** ** ** ** ** ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| ****** ****** ****** ** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|__________________________________________________________________|
| |
|Peace & Solidarity rfindlay(@)iww.org |
|-- |
|Rob Findlay (I.U. 560) IWW |
|-- |
|http://slagnet.dhs.org http://utah.indymedia.org |
|http://iww.org http://anarchosyndicalism.org |
| |
| http://beehivecollective.8m.com |
|__________________________________________________________________|

"Why of course the people don't want war... But, after all, it is
the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always
a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy,
or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger."
-- Hermann Goering At the Nuremberg trials.

[ The comments herein are the comments of the sender and the sender
alone. NOT the Industrial Workers of the World. UNLESS explicitaly
stated otherwise. ]


Glenn Cooper

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 3:45:29 AM1/15/02
to
Oh god, not this rubbish again???!!!

Chomsky was defending Faurrisan's (sp?) right to speak his mind. He was not
defending the *thesis*.

Jesus. It's such a *simple* point!

Why can't people understand it???

Glenn C.


Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 6:13:54 AM1/15/02
to
Mr Findlay should be aware that Chomsky's description of the pro-Nazi
Faurisson as 'a sort of relatively apolitical liberal' came as Chomsky was
fully aware of Faurisson's Nazism. On the evidence of Chomsky's article in
defence of this Holocaust denier, Chomsky had read the extensive quotations
from Faurisson's work reproduced by Pierre Vidal-Naquet in Esprit.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"Rob Findlay" <slag...@billybeckloon.org> wrote in message
news:slrna479u6....@slacknet.slacknet.com...

john smith

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 6:16:49 AM1/15/02
to

yupp.

Now all we need is oggies/ollies "expert" dissertations for another 2
months....

oh, well, might even be amusing ;)

-- js

john smith

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 6:19:06 AM1/15/02
to
and before I could spell illuminati...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 6:11:50 AM1/15/02
to
Perhaps because they're not as simple as you.

Chomsky, on the contrary, made a judgement on the *content* of Faurisson's
speech (that, incidentally, is the correct spelling of the man's name - not
difficult): he described Faurisson as 'a sort of relatively apolitical
liberal'. He did so, moreover, while - on the admission of his own article
in support of Faurisson - being fully aware of Faurisson's support for
Nazism. He was made aware by the article by Pierre Vidal-Naquet in Esprit
that Chomsky alludes to in his pro-Faurisson polemic.

You need to do some research before posting on this ng in future.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"Glenn Cooper" <glenn...@austarnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:a20q6i$2o8b$1...@austar-news.austarnet.com.au...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 6:31:43 AM1/15/02
to
I'm not surprised Mr Smith finds anti-Semitism all a bit of a giggle
considering the welcome he extended on this ng to supporters of the Ku Klux
Klan. He does need to tell us directly, however: is he suggesting that
Chomsky was completely unaware of Faurisson's opinions on the Nazi
persecution of the Jews when he, Chomsky, described Faurisson as 'a sort of
relatively apolitical liberal'?

Reflect carefully before you answer, Mr Smith: you have come unstuck badly
before now through not being in command of your facts.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"john smith" <lagerboks-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C440FA1...@yahoo.com...

Justin Felux

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 9:08:08 AM1/15/02
to

Oliver Kamm wrote in message ...

>I'm not surprised Mr Smith finds anti-Semitism all a bit of a giggle
>considering the welcome he extended on this ng to supporters of the Ku Klux
>Klan. He does need to tell us directly, however: is he suggesting that
>Chomsky was completely unaware of Faurisson's opinions on the Nazi
>persecution of the Jews when he, Chomsky, described Faurisson as 'a sort of
>relatively apolitical liberal'?
>
>Reflect carefully before you answer, Mr Smith: you have come unstuck badly
>before now through not being in command of your facts.
>
>--
>OLIVER KAMM


Still waiting for Ollie to justify his support for the murderous band of
rapists known as the contras.


Criminy Jicket

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 11:39:16 AM1/15/02
to
An excerpt from an old thread

"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message

news:rmU08.2756$Oh1.8...@monolith.news.easynet.net...

Criminy Jicket

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 11:42:02 AM1/15/02
to
An excerpt from an old thread should be humiliating enough for Oggie,
although based on past performance it won't shut him up - au contraire.

What a glutton for punishment.

[snip]

Knowing nothing about Guillaume and, (to coin a phrase) caring less, I am
not in a position to comment as to whether he is a neo-Nazi or not. However,
if this one piece is all we have to show that Chomsky is a Nazi, then Cohn
really is a lunatic. Guillaume states that "[Chomsky] says that his opinions
are 'diametrically opposed to those of Faurisson,' [but] he always puts it
in terms that absolutely cannot possibly hurt Faurisson". Could we please
have some examples from Chomsky's own writings? Why should we trust
Guillaume who, according to
Cohn, *is* a neo-Nazi? Even if this were true, exactly how does it show that
Chomsky is a Nazi sympathiser or an anti-Semite?

In contrast, if one actually takes the time to read Chomsky's own words, the
picture is entirely different. Here's a representative sample.

1)
"Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have
frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle
East?, where I describe the holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of
collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of
expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of
which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are
almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most
vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense
or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of
civil rights by some official enemy." -- "His Right to Say It", Noam
Chomsky, The Nation, February 28, 1981

Here, Chomsky is not only stating that his views are "diametrically opposed"
to those of Faurisson, but also implying that Faurisson's freedom of speech
must be defended precisely because his views are despicable.

2)
"Going back years, I am absolutely certain I've taken far more extreme
positions on people who deny the Holocaust than you have. For example, you
back to my earliest articles and you find that I say that even to enter into
the arena of debate on the question of whether the Nazis carried out such
atrocities is already to lose one's humanity. So I don't even think you
ought to discuss the issue, if you want to know my opinion. But if anybody
wants to refute Faurisson there's certainly no difficulty in doing so." --
Noam Chomsky lecture, Battersea Arts Centre, London.

Get that, Cohn? "But if anybody wants to refute Faurisson there's certainly
no difficulty in doing so."

3)
"How much of the American press believes that Faurisson has anything to say?
How much of the French press? Is it higher than zero? Have you ever seen
anything in any newspaper or any journal saying this man [Faurisson] is
anything other than a lunatic?" -- Noam Chomsky making Yossi Olmert look
stoopid in 1985.

[snip]

"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rmU08.2756$Oh1.8...@monolith.news.easynet.net...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 11:57:51 AM1/15/02
to
How splendid.

Ng members will I hope be indulgent of Master Justin, who is a juvenile and
whose previous contributions - which have expounded his interest in
pornography and have been written in remarkably bad English - have amply
demonstrated the point. We should thus not be surprised that he appears to
be unfamiliar with the historical event known as the Holocaust, still less
with what its moral import is, and least of all at his rather fetching habit
of digging himself into a hole. Like an adult purloining a child's candy, I
hereby cordially invite him to substantiate his bizarre remarks below. As
Voltaire observed, everyone has a natural right to stupidity, and I would
encourage Master Justin to persist in exercising his.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"Justin Felux" <kar...@idworld.net> wrote in message
news:u486tec...@corp.supernews.com...

Rob Findlay

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 12:14:03 PM1/15/02
to
In article <L5U08.2748$Oh1.8...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, Oliver Kamm wrote:
>Mr Findlay should be aware that Chomsky's description of the pro-Nazi
>Faurisson as 'a sort of relatively apolitical liberal' came as Chomsky was
>fully aware of Faurisson's Nazism. On the evidence of Chomsky's article in
>defence of this Holocaust denier, Chomsky had read the extensive quotations
>from Faurisson's work reproduced by Pierre Vidal-Naquet in Esprit.

Yes, we all know of Chomsky secrect life as a neo-nazi in France.

Wow, the chomsky bashers sure are grasping at straws.

john smith

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 3:12:25 AM1/16/02
to
Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> I'm not surprised Mr Smith finds anti-Semitism all a bit of a giggle

I'm not surprised mr Oggie's level of debate sinks to its usual juvenile
method of smearing his libel in debates that do not even concern
"semitism".

In fact we've all come to expect it from him.


> considering the welcome he extended on this ng to supporters of the Ku Klux
> Klan.

welcome? Mr. Oggie who does not even seem understand the simpler
philosophies
of the 18th century, nor Russeau or others that are at the very
foundations
of humanist and democrat traditions cannot even explain himself without
resorting to ad hominem and slander.


> He does need to tell us directly, however: is he suggesting that
> Chomsky was completely unaware of Faurisson's opinions on the Nazi
> persecution of the Jews when he, Chomsky, described Faurisson as 'a sort of
> relatively apolitical liberal'?

inane drivel refuted for over twenty years.


> Reflect carefully before you answer, Mr Smith: you have come unstuck badly
> before now through not being in command of your facts.

Alas. Only in your head and imagination mr. Kamm.

it seems you need to re-asess your conspiracist theories and _try_
to see things from more than one angle ( i.e.: your own)

-- js

john smith

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 3:14:02 AM1/16/02
to


Yes, ollie, lets hear _your_ angle on this one again. Please.

-- js

john smith

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 3:14:48 AM1/16/02
to
Criminy Jicket wrote:
>
> An excerpt from an old thread

yes? and?

Real name

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 7:47:04 AM1/16/02
to
The question remains, however, as to what Noam chooses to support or
decry. He is *not*, despite his sarcasm, a figure totally devoid of
media access.. Rather, he has a well-developed network.

I have no objection, in theory, with his principled support of
Faurrisan. Chomsky does not only appear in the mainstream media,
however, but he is as much a regular figure as any ex-president, and
more common than, say the current German Chancellor.

Alternative media? Hardly. Chomsky orchestrates a media circus, and
publishes his views at will, usually picked up in the NY Times, Le
Monde, and, (god knows) on the 'net.

That Chomsky chose to support a maligned moron like Faurrisan raises a
different question, to wit, Chomsky's focus on what is *significant*.

Given his media savvy, and his ability to draw media attention and live
audiences, the fact that he wasted it on some French Holocaust-denier,
suggests to me that Chomsky has become too enamoured of his mid-life
program to study his Buddha nature. He's starting actively to seek out
people to forgive, rationalizing his bad communist totaliarian political
past, and more and more moving toward media "tactics", rather than
critical and ethical action.

Moreover:

The last time Chomsky came to town (2000), he lectured us all on the
American military-industrial complex and US actions in Latin America.
This was not a revelation, and seemed condescending given what was going
on in our own country.

From the (mostly fawning, 40-something) audience questions afterwards,
it was clear that Chomsky did not know the name of our foreign minister,
the structure or political character of the cabinet, and wasn't even
entirely sure of which city he was visiting (honest, he did *not* seem
to know -- like a rock star on tour, he was just in another hotel).

Isn't Chomsky's arrogance just as bad or worse than CNN's?

Chomsky struck me as comically ill-informed, and certainly less
up-to-date than Le Monde.

Yet, he seems to feel himself qualified to speak on everything from the
Sudan to Afghanistan to Taipei. What a God. What a self-satisfied
commentator. I can't imagine that this professor, who didn't seem
conversant with local, easy and obvious political issues in my country,
could miraculously develop a profound understanding of the Middle East,
Islam,, and Afghanistan.

I don't mind Chomsky's forays into US economics, but his opinions on
foreign politics are demonstrably uninformed. Tie him up, tie him down,
but he's an *embarrassment* to Americans wherever he travels.

And for that matter, why is Chomsky so often described as a "dissident"?

Has Chomsky ever lost his MIT +$100K gig? Ever spent time in Lubyanka?
Ever stayed in a flea-bag motel? Ever suffered one whit for his
political views? (In my town, he was put up in the local Four Seasons).

Sahkarov was a dissident. Mandela was a dissident. Wang Dan was a
dissident.

Let's not cheapen the term "dissident" by applying it to Chomsky.

H

Justin Felux

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 7:21:09 PM1/16/02
to

STILL waiting for Oliver Kamm to justify his support of the murderous band

zztop8970-

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 8:23:33 PM1/16/02
to
john smith <lagerboks-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3C4535E8...@yahoo.com>...
> Oliver Kamm wrote:
<snip>

> In fact we've all come to expect it from him.
>
>
> > considering the welcome he extended on this ng to supporters of the Ku Klux
> > Klan.
>
> welcome?


Yes, welcome. Mr. Samirhibri posted a racist antisemite article by a
Ku Klux Klansman, and you cheerfully called him a voice of reason.
Remember?

john smith

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 4:40:58 AM1/17/02
to
Oliver Kamm wrote:

> I'm not surprised Mr Smith finds anti-Semitism all a bit of a giggle
> considering the welcome he extended on this ng to supporters of the Ku Klux
> Klan. He does need to tell us directly, however: is he suggesting that
> Chomsky was completely unaware of Faurisson's opinions on the Nazi
> persecution of the Jews when he, Chomsky, described Faurisson as 'a sort of
> relatively apolitical liberal'?
>
> Reflect carefully before you answer, Mr Smith: you have come unstuck badly
> before now through not being in command of your facts.

"Reflect carefully before you answer," Mr Kamm,
it will most certainly bring you a quite novel sensation.

For the rest of you, you should all be aware that mr. Kamm undoubtedly
is a well known nazi-symapathizer considering his absurd utterances
and pretense of supporting humanist and humanitarian values (and
leftist?)
although not very well. Its abundantly clear that he tries to do
decent jews and israelis as much disservice as humanly possible, amongst
others by screaming bloody murder and "nazi" at every opportunity
(and even when there is no such), but for the main part he uses his
endless arsenal of slander, libel and juvenile attempts to label
anyone and everyone a nazi-sympathiser, for critisising the various
actions of the various governing political parties of Israel
and their consequences.

Equally, it passes for logic in what can only be a very narrow mind,
that since nazi-sympathisers also "critisise" Israeli governments
actions
anyone that holds critical views of Israeli governments and their
actions
must also "find holocaust a bit of a giggle",
a sickening and disgusting juvenile repetition at best, a deliberate
attempt
to smear all debates to their lowest level, if anything.

One can only conclude that the one true disgusting neo-nazi sympathizer
here
must be mr. Oliver Kamm himself , wether he understands it himself or
not. QED.

--js

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 6:15:24 PM1/17/02
to
I should have guessed that a long word like 'substantiate' was likely to
flummox young Justin. I beg the ng's indulgence for our young friend, for he
is a juvenile.

My dear sonny, if you declare, apropos of nothing in particular, that 'x
supports y', then you need to demonstrate that x does indeed 'support y' if
your contribution is to be anything more than a further illustration of a
remarkably under-educated and semi-literate personality. The fact that you
cannot do so in this case - and you cannot - merely leads this ng to infer a
judgement about you maturity that it would be uncharitable of me to repeat.

I'm sorry, but there it is. If you would care to e-mail me off-list I should
be happy to provide you with a reading-list that would advance your
political and economic education, and indeed your standards of basic
literacy, albeit in each case from a low base.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"Justin Felux" <kar...@idworld.net> wrote in message

news:u4bv7a4...@corp.supernews.com...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 6:17:11 PM1/17/02
to
I should be glad to discuss the politics of that country and continent once
you have demonstrated to me that I hold the position that you ascribe to me.
Kindly go ahead.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"john smith" <lagerboks-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:3C45364A...@yahoo.com...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 6:19:18 PM1/17/02
to
Quite incomprehensible to me, I'm afraid, and indeed to the rest of the ng.
Are you suggesting that Chomsky was completely unaware of Faurisson's Nazism
when he cheered for that bigot, or are you trying to evade the question? I
think we should be told.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"Criminy Jicket" <crimin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1011112930.10102....@news.demon.co.uk...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 6:21:40 PM1/17/02
to
Mr Smith waves his arms and legs about, but is evidently concerned to try to
avoid the question. Do you, Mr Smith, maintain that when Chomsky described
Faurisson as 'a sort of relatively a political liberal', he was unaware of
Faurisson's sympathies for Nazi Germany?

I repeat: reflect carefully before you answer, for your lack of facility
with politics has previously been a source of some amusement for this ng.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"john smith" <lagerboks-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:3C4535E8...@yahoo.com...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 6:24:36 PM1/17/02
to
On the contrary, I reserve the term 'Nazi' for those who are Nazis. One
instance would be the Klan supporter Samirhibri, whom Mr Smith welcomed and
cheered. What is about Chomsky groupies that makes them attracted to Nazism,
and what is it about them that makes Nazis attracted to them? Given that
these two observations are a matter of straightfoward record (Smith's chum
Samirhibri actually posted Jew-hating articles by the Klansman David Duke to
this ng, and Mr Smith found much in those posts of value), I hope we can
discuss this matter in a rational and objective manner. I'm genuinely
interested.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"john smith" <lagerboks-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:3C469C2A...@yahoo.com...

Matthew Healey

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 6:22:26 PM1/17/02
to

Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> I should have guessed that a long word like 'substantiate' was likely to
> flummox young Justin. I beg the ng's indulgence for our young friend, for he
> is a juvenile.
>
> My dear sonny, if you declare, apropos of nothing in particular, that 'x
> supports y', then you need to demonstrate that x does indeed 'support y' if
> your contribution is to be anything more than a further illustration of a
> remarkably under-educated and semi-literate personality.

I agree with you 100%. But you are guilty of this also.

Oliver you initiated this thread by making two claims

1) It is evident that Chomsky's links with this type of Nazism run


deep and extends to active co-operation

2) we can infer that Chomsky will speak out for any cause,
however vile, dishonest and murderous, provided only that said cause be
anti-Jewish and genocidal

In the context of the post both are non sequitor. The article you posted
provided no evidence whatsoever for the claims you made. Therefore you
are guilty of offering an argument that is nothing more than (to quote
you) "a further illustration of a remarkably under-educated and
semi-literate personality"

> The fact that you


> cannot do so in this case - and you cannot - merely leads this ng

Who made you the god of this group. Maybe the Jester but not the god.

SNIP.

matt

:p

Matthew Healey

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 6:26:00 PM1/17/02
to

Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> Quite incomprehensible to me, I'm afraid, and indeed to the rest of the ng.
> Are you suggesting that Chomsky was completely unaware of Faurisson's Nazism
> when he cheered for that bigot, or are you trying to evade the question? I
> think we should be told.
>
> --

SNIP

No the point is that one can argue for anothers right to voice their
opinion (as Chomsky did) without adopting the opinion itself (you
haven't shown he does hold similar views). The opinon of the other must
stand and fall on an analysis of the facts (whereas you think an ad hom
will do it). It might in fact be wrong or untrue but the holder still
has a right to voice it.

matt

:p

Matthew Healey

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 6:31:10 PM1/17/02
to

Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> Mr Smith waves his arms and legs about, but is evidently concerned to try to
> avoid the question. Do you, Mr Smith, maintain that when Chomsky described
> Faurisson as 'a sort of relatively a political liberal', he was unaware of
> Faurisson's sympathies for Nazi Germany?

What does that matter? You seem to think that all you need do is dragup
some unsavoury info about a persons character and therefore everything
they say is false.



> I repeat: reflect carefully before you answer

Funny I was thinking the same about you, since to argue a point via
evidence requires thought but to dismiss an argument based on ad hominin
attacks is evidence of stereotyping and bigotry.

SNIP

matt

:p

Justin Felux

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 9:29:23 PM1/17/02
to

Oliver Kamm wrote in message
<7SI18.3339$nA4.7...@monolith.news.easynet.net>...

>I should have guessed that a long word like 'substantiate' was likely to
>flummox young Justin. I beg the ng's indulgence for our young friend, for
he
>is a juvenile.
>
>My dear sonny, if you declare, apropos of nothing in particular, that 'x
>supports y', then you need to demonstrate that x does indeed 'support y' if
>your contribution is to be anything more than a further illustration of a
>remarkably under-educated and semi-literate personality. The fact that you
>cannot do so in this case - and you cannot - merely leads this ng to infer
a
>judgement about you maturity that it would be uncharitable of me to repeat.
>
>I'm sorry, but there it is. If you would care to e-mail me off-list I
should
>be happy to provide you with a reading-list that would advance your
>political and economic education, and indeed your standards of basic
>literacy, albeit in each case from a low base.


Oliver Kamm still refuses to explain to us his support for the murderous
contras. Rather he chooses to attack my character. I and many people on
this newsgroup are eagerly awaiting your explanation on how you can show
open support for a band of murderous thugs.


zztop8970-

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 8:38:46 PM1/17/02
to
Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message news:<3C475EBE...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...

> Oliver Kamm wrote:
> >
> > Mr Smith waves his arms and legs about, but is evidently concerned to try to
> > avoid the question. Do you, Mr Smith, maintain that when Chomsky described
> > Faurisson as 'a sort of relatively a political liberal', he was unaware of
> > Faurisson's sympathies for Nazi Germany?
>
> What does that matter?


It matters, because it shows that the claims that Chomsky was merely
trying to protect Faurisson's free speech are patently false.
They are a nice strawman erected by Chomsky groupies who find it easy
to attack Chomsky critics as supposedly anti free-speech, when in
reality, they are attcking the above whitewashing of neo-Nazi
sentiemnt.

zztop8970-

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 8:41:13 PM1/17/02
to
Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message news:<3C475D88...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...

> Oliver Kamm wrote:
> >
> > Quite incomprehensible to me, I'm afraid, and indeed to the rest of the ng.
> > Are you suggesting that Chomsky was completely unaware of Faurisson's Nazism
> > when he cheered for that bigot, or are you trying to evade the question? I
> > think we should be told.
> >
> > --
>
> SNIP
>
> No the point is that one can argue for anothers right to voice their
> opinion (as Chomsky did) without adopting the opinion itself (you
> haven't shown he does hold similar views).


In what way was Chomsky's assessment of Faurisson, as an "apolitcal
liberal" and not as an antisemite, an argument for his right to voice
his opinion?

Matt

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 11:13:12 PM1/17/02
to
In article <35d69502.0201...@posting.google.com>,
zzto...@yahoo.com (zztop8970-) wrote:

What I find most striking is not the mere suggestion that Faurisson is
an "apolitical liberal" (though that is indeed striking) but the larger
context of the essay, in which Chomsky begins by saying he is only
concerned with Faurisson's freedom of speech, and ends with a defense of
Faurisson from the charges of anti-Semitism. It is vintage Chomskyan
doublespeak.

john smith

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 3:09:57 AM1/18/02
to
Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> On the contrary, I reserve the term 'Nazi' for those who are Nazis. One
> instance would be the Klan supporter Samirhibri, whom Mr Smith welcomed and
> cheered.

once again Kamm cannot open his moth without slander and inaccuracies.

what constitutes "welcomes" and "cheers" on mr Kamms part is
probably as totally uninteresting to the general public
as it is a disgusting proof of the level of his "intellect".

I was in fact the FIRST to point out the
racist/anti-semite contents, implications
and consequences of mr Smirhibris "David Duke posting" .

Mr. Kamm yet again shows his vile and sickening method of "debate".

Ad Hominem ad infinitum ad nauseum.


> What is about Chomsky groupies that makes them attracted to Nazism,

more juvenile chatter.

> and what is it about them that makes Nazis attracted to them? Given that
> these two observations are a matter of straightfoward record (Smith's chum
> Samirhibri actually posted Jew-hating articles by the Klansman David Duke to
> this ng, and Mr Smith found much in those posts of value),

A sickening insinuation at best.

My critic of tha state of Israel or rather its passing governments
are my own. Mr. Kamm tries to ascribe any views that critisise Israel
to equal and amount to being a nazi-sympathizer.

which only goes to show, and deepen the impression of Mr. Kamm as
a true and disgusting juvenile slanderer.

> I hope we can
> discuss this matter in a rational and objective manner. I'm genuinely
> interested.

you pretend to be rational?
objective??
now???

you dont find it a bit late to play that illusion upon us now?

Criminy Jicket

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 6:15:25 AM1/18/02
to
Chomsky was aware of Faurisson's ludicrous claims and has consistently
denounced them as such (as demonstrated by the quotes below). He says he has
never read Faurisson's work, nor would he care to - either way it is
irrelevant to the argument at hand, which is about freedom of speech. For
someone fond of quoting Voltaire, your inability to distinguish between
defending someone's views and defending his right to express them is the
height of hypocrisy. The principle has been understood outside of fascist
circles since at least the 17th century.


"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message

news:QVI18.3341$nA4.7...@monolith.news.easynet.net...

Criminy Jicket

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 7:03:25 AM1/18/02
to
Don't wish to be a party-pooper but, try as you might, the phrase "a sort of
relatively apolitical liberal" will never constitute the ringing endorsement
of Faurisson's views you want us to believe it is. It is, at worst, a
neutral statement which, in light of Chomsky's explicit condemnation of
Faurisson as "a lunatic" whose views are "diametrically opposed" to his own,
amounts to no more than a big fat red herring.

Further, given Kamm's apologias for fascists and war criminals such as Henry
Kissinger in this ng, it is rich in the extreme.

Finally, to quote myself,

"Chomsky was aware of Faurisson's ludicrous claims and has consistently

denounced them as such . He says he has never read Faurisson's work, nor


would he care to - either way it is irrelevant to the argument at hand,
which is about freedom of speech. For

someone fond of quoting Voltaire, Kamm's inability to distinguish between


defending someone's views and defending his right to express them is the
height of hypocrisy. The principle has been understood outside of fascist
circles since at least the 17th century."


"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message

news:%XI18.3342$nA4.7...@monolith.news.easynet.net...

Frank Church

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 6:16:23 PM1/18/02
to
Don't anyone buy Olivers shit. He does this because he is bored with
life. Chomsky is above board on all things related to this topic. A
former Hebrew teacher has brownie points Ollie would envy, but Ollie
has too many Jacob Marley chains of his own to contend with. Fuck his
Anglo ass.

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 6:41:21 PM1/18/02
to
How splendid to hear from Mr Church after he scuttled off the ng many weeks
ago. Regular subscribers will know that, having been rather embarrassingly
stumped, Mr Church responded to the World Bank data proving his chumpishness
by claiming that those data were faked. I have since pressed him for his
evidence for this assertion, but he has yet to enlighten us. Could it be -
could it just possibly be - that Mr Church has no such evidence but in his
desperation was unable to come up with anything more intelligent to say?
Surely not.

Over to you, old bean.

--
OLIVER KAMM

"Frank Church" <tog...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:66a868c0.02011...@posting.google.com...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 6:43:05 PM1/18/02
to
Talking of semi-literacy, you mean 'non sequitur', not 'sequitor'.

Chomsky described a man he knew to be a Nazi as 's sort of relatively
apolitical liberal'. To those of us who hold to civilised, libertarian,
progressive and humane values, that statement speaks for itself.

--
OLIVER KAMM


"Matthew Healey" <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message

news:3C475CB2...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 6:50:57 PM1/18/02
to
If Master Justin considers it an attack on his character to observe that his
animadversions are rather obviously the work of a juvenile, then he has had
a sheltered upbringing indeed. I'm sorry to have to point this out, old
bean, I really am, but it is not an attack upon your character to note your
silliness, immaturity and evident lack of application to your studies
(especially in the fields of basic grammar and spelling): it is helpful
advice intended to enable you to better yourself. Not the least marked
aspect of your silliness is your invocation of quite baffling
tergiversations such as that below. If I have displayed 'open support for a
band of murderous thugs', it will be no problem for you to cite evidence of
such open support, with clear references to my statements to this end. So
kindly go ahead. But as you will be unable to do so, it would be kinder to
the grown-ups on this ng if you were now just to run along and indulge your
previously-expressed predilections.

I wish you well.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"Justin Felux" <kar...@idworld.net> wrote in message

news:u4er31j...@corp.supernews.com...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 6:57:38 PM1/18/02
to
Here we have it! On your own admission, Chomsky knew Faurisson to be a Nazi
and yet described him as 'a sort of relatively apolitical liberal'. Thank
you for being so candid as - eventually - to admit this aspect of the public
record rather than obfuscate it.

That admission is humiliating enough for you, but it pales into
insignificance compared with your reference to Voltaire. Rather like Mr
Smith and his fabricated 'quotation' from Edmund Burke - which he eventually
was forced to withdraw - it's patently obvious from the fabricated
'quotation' from Voltaire you claim to allude to that your grasp of
intellectual history is exceedingly slight. If you wish to dispute that sad
but irrefutable judgement, then I suggest you go right ahead and provide a
source for this 'quotation'.

The rest of us will fall about laughing while you attempt it.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"Criminy Jicket" <crimin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1011352537.18588....@news.demon.co.uk...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 6:58:49 PM1/18/02
to
Yes, everything Faurisson says about the Holocaust is false. He is a Nazi.
Chomsky, however, doesn't see anything particularly wrong in this: the man
is, according to him, 'a sort of relatively apolitical liberal'.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"Matthew Healey" <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message

news:3C475EBE...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 7:00:18 PM1/18/02
to
Here we go again. A supporter of the Ku Klux Klan, one Samirhibri, posted
racist and Jew-hating filth to this ng. Mr Smith defended and cheered him.
That, I am afraid, is a matter of record.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"john smith" <lagerboks-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:3C47D855...@yahoo.com...

JESUS & ELORDIETA

unread,
Jan 19, 2002, 8:16:37 AM1/19/02
to
It seems if you defend the right of Holocaust deniers to speak,you are
automatically called an anti-semite.
Chomsky once criticised the decision of the Australian Government not to
grant revisionist historian David Irving an entry visa into Australia.He
called Irving's views "abhorrent",but he said that the best way to expose
Irving,was to engage him in vigourous debate,not to muzzle him,because that
would make a political martyr out of him,a victim of political correctness.

"john smith" <lagerboks-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C4535E8...@yahoo.com...

> Oliver Kamm wrote:
> >
> > I'm not surprised Mr Smith finds anti-Semitism all a bit of a giggle
>
> I'm not surprised mr Oggie's level of debate sinks to its usual juvenile
> method of smearing his libel in debates that do not even concern
> "semitism".
>
> In fact we've all come to expect it from him.
>
>
> > considering the welcome he extended on this ng to supporters of the Ku
Klux
> > Klan.
>
> welcome? Mr. Oggie who does not even seem understand the simpler
> philosophies
> of the 18th century, nor Russeau or others that are at the very
> foundations
> of humanist and democrat traditions cannot even explain himself without
> resorting to ad hominem and slander.
>
>
> > He does need to tell us directly, however: is he suggesting that
> > Chomsky was completely unaware of Faurisson's opinions on the Nazi
> > persecution of the Jews when he, Chomsky, described Faurisson as 'a sort
of
> > relatively apolitical liberal'?
>
> inane drivel refuted for over twenty years.
>
>
> > Reflect carefully before you answer, Mr Smith: you have come unstuck
badly
> > before now through not being in command of your facts.
>
> Alas. Only in your head and imagination mr. Kamm.
>
> it seems you need to re-asess your conspiracist theories and _try_
> to see things from more than one angle ( i.e.: your own)
>
> -- js
>
>

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 19, 2002, 8:26:18 AM1/19/02
to
This is, appropriately enough for this forum, a laughably ignorant post. No
one on this ng has 'automatically' or even voluntarily called anyone an
anti-Semite for defending the right of Holocaust deniers to spread hate and
lies. That libertarian position is one that I hold. We attack Chomsky for
whitewashing hate and lies, by calling a Nazi 'a relatively apolitical sort
of liberal'. Do you believe that a Nazi is a relatively apolitical sort of
liberal? If so, you are an anti-Semite.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"JESUS & ELORDIETA" <jo...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c496...@news.iprimus.com.au...

Somebody

unread,
Jan 19, 2002, 8:57:32 AM1/19/02
to
Has anyone mentioned is downplaying of the victims of the holocaust in
Cambodia?

Matthew Healey

unread,
Jan 19, 2002, 5:36:02 PM1/19/02
to

Matt wrote:
>
> In article <35d69502.0201...@posting.google.com>,
> zzto...@yahoo.com (zztop8970-) wrote:
>
> > Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3C475D88...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...

SNIP


> What I find most striking is not the mere suggestion that Faurisson is
> an "apolitical liberal" (though that is indeed striking) but the larger
> context of the essay

Written by Faurisson himself.

> in which Chomsky begins by saying he is only
> concerned with Faurisson's freedom of speech

It is Faurisson defending himself.

> and ends with a defense of
> Faurisson from the charges of anti-Semitism.

Yes, it is Faurisson defending himself

> It is vintage Chomskyan
> doublespeak.

Its not even Chomsky's writings its Faurissons. You appear to know the
conclusion before reading the evidence. That fact that the conclusion
'chomsky loves holocaust deniers' does not follow from Olivers post is
irreleant to you obviously. :(

The only mention of Chomsky is F quoting him saying "in an
extraordinarily unfair way."

NC may be a baby eating Nazi but the article that Oliver posted in no
way proves that.

matt

:p

kyle

unread,
Jan 19, 2002, 5:57:30 PM1/19/02
to
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 07:57:32 -0600, Somebody <some...@hotmail.ccom>
wrote:

>Has anyone mentioned is downplaying of the victims of the holocaust in
>Cambodia?

Has anybody mentioned the US media's downplaying the victims of the
holocaust in E. Timor?

What do you creeps get out of hanging around the Alt.FAN.noam-chomsky
group and dragging your tired, pointless propaganda into the
conversation? Shouldn't you be in alt.fan.rupert-murdoch or something?

Luv,
Kyle


P.S. Hello Justin, by the way.


-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly
to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when
all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.

- Aristotle

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 19, 2002, 6:54:30 PM1/19/02
to

--
OLIVER KAMM
"kyle" <n...@mybest.net> wrote in message
news:tjuj4use3m56t1no2...@4ax.com...


> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 07:57:32 -0600, Somebody <some...@hotmail.ccom>
> wrote:
>
> >Has anyone mentioned is downplaying of the victims of the holocaust in
> >Cambodia?
>
> Has anybody mentioned the US media's downplaying the victims of the
> holocaust in E. Timor?

No, because they did no such thing. Did you read them at the time, or are
you just repeating something you were told but have never bothered to
research for yourself?


>
> What do you creeps get out of hanging around the Alt.FAN.noam-chomsky
> group and dragging your tired, pointless propaganda into the
> conversation? Shouldn't you be in alt.fan.rupert-murdoch or something?

Oh, so are you denying that Chomsky described a Nazi as 'a sort of
relatively apolitical liberal'? A one-word answer will do.

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 20, 2002, 7:00:24 AM1/20/02
to
We are STILL WAITING for the pseudonymous author of the remarks I criticise
below to give a reference for his fabricated account of Voltaire's
sentiments.

When John Smith, on this ng, fabriacted a quotation from Edmund Burke he
whined and obfuscated and eventually had to withdraw it, demonstrating his
dishonesty and political illiteracy. Exactly the same procedure will now
follow in your case, and it would spare the time and tolerance of this ng if
you were to apologise now for your dishonest claims.

--
OLIVER KAMM


"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message

news:Jz228.162$9t.1...@monolith.news.easynet.net...

Criminy Jicket

unread,
Jan 20, 2002, 9:41:52 AM1/20/02
to
This is really amusing. Kamm is now either pretending to be
clairvoyant or he's gone crazy and is seeing things (which
amounts to the same thing). As I made no reference to any
'quotation', it follows as a matter of logic that I cannot be
ascribing it to Voltaire or anyone else.

On the other hand, I *am* making the irrefutable claim that
for someone fond of quoting Voltaire, Kamm's inability to
distinguish between supporting someone's views and supporting
his right to express them, reeks of hypocrisy. For anyone
with an even cursory knowledge of Voltaire's work, this will
be obvious. The fact that I have to point this out also sheds
light on the unashamedly moronic level of Kamm's arguments.

I presume that the 'quotation' to which Kamm alludes (and
which I did not allude to), is Evelyn Beatrice Hall's (aka
Tallentyre's) loose paraphrase of Voltaire in her book "The
Friends of Voltaire." Kamm, you know absolutely nothing about
me or the depth of my knowledge of intellectual history but,
I can assure you, you are treading on thin ice.

Finally, we are STILL WAITING for Kamm to reply to a previous
post of mine, so I repeat it here. I look forward to laughing
at his 'answers'.

----
I don't wish to be a party-pooper but, try as you might, the
phrase "a sort of relatively apolitical liberal" will never
constitute the kind of ringing endorsement of Faurisson that
you would want us to believe it is. It is, at worst, a
relatively neutral judgement which, in light of Chomsky's
explicit reference to Faurisson as "a lunatic" whose views

are "diametrically opposed" to his own, amounts to no more
than a big fat red herring.

Further, given Kamm's apologias for fascists and war

criminals such as Pinochet and Henry Kissinger in this
very ng, it is rich in the extreme.
----

In article <Jz228.162$9t.1...@monolith.news.easynet.net>,
olive...@ukonline.co.uk says...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 20, 2002, 10:36:22 AM1/20/02
to
This is a hilariously ignorant post. Fortunately for its author, my sense of
scholarly standards prevents me from pointing out that he is a prize fathead
with a minuscule knowledge of French intellectual history, but I cannot
reputably desist from noting that he clearly finds much more to oppose in
democratic politicians than he does in Nazis. Clearly he lacks even a
cursory knowledge of Voltaire, who said nothing remotely comparable to what
the Fabricator claims (though Volatire did, of course, assert 'What a fuss
about an omelette!' on the burning of Helvetius' De l'esprit, according to
James Parton's Life of Voltaire). I am highly familiar, old bean, with your
'knowledge of intellectual history': it's a joke.


--
OLIVER KAMM
"Criminy Jicket" <crimin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:MPG.16b4e78c4...@news.homechoice.co.uk...

Criminy Jicket

unread,
Jan 20, 2002, 12:06:59 PM1/20/02
to
Once again, having made a complete fool of himself, Kamm
attempts to cover himself through evasion. Just to make
things as transparent as possible for his tired mind, there
are at least four issues which Kamm has failed miserably to
deal with:

1) I made no reference to any 'quotation' of Volatire's (sic)
so, unless the 'Fabricator' in question is Evelyn Beatrice
Hall, Kamm's remarks are beyond gibberish. By the way, Hall
later claimed that she was paraphrasing Voltaire's "Think for
yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too"
from his Essay on Tolerance.

2) Kamm is displaying either his staggering ignorance or his
mythomania by claiming that Voltaire was not an advocate of
free speech! This is truly ridiculous, as anyone with even a
cursory knowledge of Voltaire's work will know. If Kamm
wasn't an all-round ignoramus, he would know that the
omelette quote is not exclusive to Parton's biography and,
that, indeed, it is standardly taken to be a criticism of the
burning of De l'esprit. Furthermore, according to Joseph
Lewis's "Voltaire: The Incomparable Infidel", Voltaire
rather aptly also said "The burning of an author's books,
imprisonment for opinion's sake, has always been the tribute
that an ignorant age pays to the genius of its time."

3) Try as he might, the phrase "a sort of relatively

apolitical liberal" will never constitute the kind of ringing

endorsement of Faurisson that Kamm would want us to believe

it is. It is, at worst, a relatively neutral judgement which,
in light of Chomsky's explicit reference to Faurisson as "a
lunatic" whose views are "diametrically opposed" to his own,
amounts to no more than a big fat red herring.

4) Kamm's hypocrisy goes even further. While Chomsky's
writings have consistently denounced Nazism, fascism, and
totalitarianism in all its forms, Kamm sees fit to post
apologias for fascists, terrorists and war criminals such as
Pinochet and Henry Kissinger, in this very ng.

Now, in order to prevent himself from looking even more
pathetic than he has until know, I'm sure Kamm will answer
all four points carefully and thoroughly. Nevertheless, I am
also sure that his four answers will provide much hilarity
for us all.

In article <LpB28.566$9t.5...@monolith.news.easynet.net>,
olive...@ukonline.co.uk says...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 20, 2002, 1:11:43 PM1/20/02
to
This is hilariously ignorant. An anti-Semite is apparently a champion of
free speech, commendation of book-burning is apparently condemnation, and
it's absolutely fine to be neutral about Nazism. Note, however, that the
Fathead is unable to cite a single instance of my supporting Pinochet, and
gets worked about Kissinger but not about Holocaust deniers.

There's nothing to stop you incriminating you further as an ignoramus, old
bean, but do try to read something about - if not by - Voltaire before
displaying your ignorance in public again. It's not enough merely to be
pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic to be a contributor to this ng, though clearly you
have assumed that it is.


--
OLIVER KAMM
"Criminy Jicket" <crimin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:MPG.16b509923...@news.homechoice.co.uk...

Matthew Healey

unread,
Jan 20, 2002, 3:57:49 PM1/20/02
to

Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> Talking of semi-literacy, you mean 'non sequitur', not 'sequitor'.

and here I was thinking that the presentation of an argument was the
crucial issue in matters of debate. All this time I've been deluded. Tis
the spelling thats important......

thanks Oliver.



> Chomsky described a man he knew to be a Nazi as 's sort of relatively
> apolitical liberal'.

I didn't know F was a nazi. He has questioned an interpretation of
particular historical events (given the sentiment involved he is a brave
man indeed and most likely wrong). How does this in itself imply he was
a Nazi?

matt

:p

Joseph Michael Bay

unread,
Jan 21, 2002, 1:30:41 AM1/21/02
to
Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:

>Oliver Kamm wrote:
>>
>> Talking of semi-literacy, you mean 'non sequitur', not 'sequitor'.

>and here I was thinking that the presentation of an argument was the
>crucial issue in matters of debate. All this time I've been deluded. Tis
>the spelling thats important......

>thanks Oliver.
>
>> Chomsky described a man he knew to be a Nazi as 's sort of relatively
>> apolitical liberal'.

This is a blatantly forged misquote: Chomsky referred to him as "_A_ sort of
relatively apolitical liberal" (emphasis mine). It's obvious that Oliver
Kamm is fabricating arguments. Has he stopped beating his wife yet?

(I'm sorry about that. Actually I think it's a rule that whenever you
correct someone else's spelling or grammer you have to make a mistake
yourself, like speling "grammar" wrong).

>I didn't know F was a nazi. He has questioned an interpretation of
>particular historical events (given the sentiment involved he is a brave
>man indeed and most likely wrong). How does this in itself imply he was
>a Nazi?

That in itself doesn't, but Faurisson's other writings do contain
a great deal of anti-Semitism. It's rather less clear to me if he
is a proponent of "Natural Order" or any of the other tenets of the
actual Nazi party.
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
Putting the "harm" in molecular pharmacology since 1998
When crime is outlawed, only outlaws will commit crimes.
LEGALIZE http://www.stanford.edu/~jmbay CRIME

john smith

unread,
Jan 21, 2002, 4:50:08 AM1/21/02
to
Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> Here we go again. A supporter of the Ku Klux Klan, one Samirhibri, posted
> racist and Jew-hating filth to this ng. Mr Smith defended and cheered him.
> That, I am afraid, is a matter of record.

here we go again indeed.

Mr. smith did no such thing as "cheering" or "defending".

Mr. Smith pointed out the racist nature and content of mr. samirhibris
Duke quote.

THAT is I'm afraid the matter of record.

you lie outright mr. Kamm.

googles deja news service has recorded the event for all posterity
for all those in doubt.

john smith

unread,
Jan 21, 2002, 5:07:31 AM1/21/02
to
zztop8970- wrote:
>
> john smith <lagerboks-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3C4535E8...@yahoo.com>...
> > Oliver Kamm wrote:
> <snip>

>
> > In fact we've all come to expect it from him.
> >
> >
> > > considering the welcome he extended on this ng to supporters of the Ku Klux
> > > Klan.
> >
> > welcome?
>
> Yes, welcome. Mr. Samirhibri posted a racist antisemite article by a
> Ku Klux Klansman, and you cheerfully called him a voice of reason.
> Remember?

cheerfully?

an interpretation at best.

a juvenile attempt at supporting slander in reality.

and yes, critisism of Israeli oppression are voices of reason compared
to much of the pro-israeli propaganda that
emenates from some keyboards on the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

I referr you all to Amnesty International's reports on the conflict.

But I suppose Mr.Kamm et al would consider Amnesty too as
"nazi-sympathizers"
since they too critisise Israeli government actions.

Criminy Jicket

unread,
Jan 21, 2002, 5:36:27 AM1/21/02
to
I think we can leave things at that, as it's clear that Kamm
is digging his own hole. He fails to specifically address any
of the points I made, choosing instead to resort to his usual
puerile invective. In the first paragraph alone, I counted
five outright lies.

For anyone who's interested, go to groups.google.com and
search for Kamm and Pinochet.

Kamm has shown that he doesn't grasp even the most basic and
fundamental aspects of Voltaire's thought. Not only has he
misquoted secondary sources, he is also claiming that
Voltaire advocated book-burning rather than freedom of
speech.

This must be Kamm's only passtime, which explains why he just
cannot stop, no matter how many turds his brain spawns, no
matter how humiliated he is. Poor, poor Oggie.

In article <oHD28.600$9t.6...@monolith.news.easynet.net>,
olive...@ukonline.co.uk says...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 21, 2002, 6:44:43 PM1/21/02
to
Our dear friend digs his own grave with commendable aplomb. Even
disregarding his laughable grasp of French intellectual history, he fails to
produce a single instance of my supposed support for Pinochet, hoping
instead that no one will take the trouble to expose him as a congenital liar
and fathead.

Unfortunately for him, I just have.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"Criminy Jicket" <crimin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:MPG.16b5fc864...@news.homechoice.co.uk...

zztop8970-

unread,
Jan 21, 2002, 7:11:18 PM1/21/02
to
Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message news:<3C49F4D2...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...

> Matt wrote:
> >
> > In article <35d69502.0201...@posting.google.com>,
> > zzto...@yahoo.com (zztop8970-) wrote:
> >
> > > Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:<3C475D88...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...
>
> SNIP
> > What I find most striking is not the mere suggestion that Faurisson is
> > an "apolitical liberal" (though that is indeed striking) but the larger
> > context of the essay
>
> Written by Faurisson himself.


My dear boy,
It is obvious you do not have the first clue about what is being
discussed.
To save yourself further public humiliation, I strongly recommend you
read "Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of
Expression" by Chomsky, which is what Mr. Kamm, Matt and myself are
talking about.

Matthew Healey

unread,
Jan 22, 2002, 2:58:11 PM1/22/02
to

zztop8970- wrote:
>
> Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message news:<3C49F4D2...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...
> > Matt wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <35d69502.0201...@posting.google.com>,
> > > zzto...@yahoo.com (zztop8970-) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
> > > > news:<3C475D88...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...
> >
> > SNIP
> > > What I find most striking is not the mere suggestion that Faurisson is
> > > an "apolitical liberal" (though that is indeed striking) but the larger
> > > context of the essay
> >
> > Written by Faurisson himself.
>
> My dear boy,
> It is obvious you do not have the first clue about what is being
> discussed.

Yes I do I can read the post.

> To save yourself further public humiliation

I'll get over it.

> I strongly recommend you
> read "Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of
> Expression" by Chomsky, which is what Mr. Kamm, Matt and myself are
> talking about.

No your not. Oliver presented a Faurisson article and concluded from
that"C supports Nazis etc". The conclusion did not follow from what was
presented as evidence. I pointed this out a number of times.

If you wish to expand the domain of evidence used then do say so. I am
not a mind reader you know.

Mr ZZTop8970 during the course of this thread you posted 4 times, 3 of
those times you responded to my posts each time trying to suggest that C
is a nazi cos he is defending F's right to present his thesis. I called
nonsequitur but the only response I got was "you've spelled it wrong".
Perhaps I'm missing some posts cos what you have to say is neither an
argument nor presentation of fact. So unless you can actually show that
"C is a nazi lover" I will take your belittlement as a compliment.

matt

:p

zztop8970-

unread,
Jan 22, 2002, 4:27:25 PM1/22/02
to
Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message news:<3C4DC453...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...

> zztop8970- wrote:
> >
> > Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message news:<3C49F4D2...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...
> > > Matt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <35d69502.0201...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > zzto...@yahoo.com (zztop8970-) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
> > > > > news:<3C475D88...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...
> > >
> > > SNIP
> > > > What I find most striking is not the mere suggestion that Faurisson is
> > > > an "apolitical liberal" (though that is indeed striking) but the larger
> > > > context of the essay
> > >
> > > Written by Faurisson himself.
> >
> > My dear boy,
> > It is obvious you do not have the first clue about what is being
> > discussed.
>
> Yes I do I can read the post.

No, you obviously can not. Matt's post above, to which you responded
with the sentence "Written by Faurisson himself", refers to Chosmky's
'"Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression",
from which the infamous "apolitical liberal" quote is taken. that you
do not recognize this shows your total unfamiliarity with the subject
matter.

>
> > To save yourself further public humiliation
>
> I'll get over it.
>
> > I strongly recommend you
> > read "Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of
> > Expression" by Chomsky, which is what Mr. Kamm, Matt and myself are
> > talking about.
>
> No your not. Oliver presented a Faurisson article and concluded from
> that"C supports Nazis etc". The conclusion did not follow from what was
> presented as evidence. I pointed this out a number of times.


You wrote "Written by Faurisson himself" in response to a post by Matt
that refers to a quote by CHomsky. Do yourself a favor and learn
something about the topics you post about.

>
> If you wish to expand the domain of evidence used then do say so. I am
> not a mind reader you know.
>
> Mr ZZTop8970 during the course of this thread you posted 4 times, 3 of
> those times you responded to my posts each time trying to suggest that C
> is a nazi cos he is defending F's right to present his thesis.


Nope. I have not done so even once. I am not suggesting the C is a
Nazi. I am suggseting that when you and other Chomsky groupies call
his essay in defence of Faurisson an excercise in fighting for free
speech, you are either totaly ignorant of what Chomsky actually wrote,
or worse, avoiding dealing with his support for Faurisson by eracting
the free speech starwman.
In your case, I believe it is the former, and renew my recomendation
that you get yourself educated.

Matthew Healey

unread,
Jan 22, 2002, 5:33:42 PM1/22/02
to

zztop8970- wrote:
>
> Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message news:<3C4DC453...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...
> > zztop8970- wrote:

SNIP

> >
> > Yes I do I can read the post.
>
> No, you obviously can not.

I assumed that the article being refered to was the one that was
originally posted by Oliver.

> Matt's post above, to which you responded
> with the sentence "Written by Faurisson himself", refers to Chosmky's
> '"Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression"

After searching the thread I am unable to find where this was stated.
Apologies if my newserver missed some posts.

> from which the infamous "apolitical liberal" quote is taken. that you
> do not recognize this shows your total unfamiliarity with the subject
> matter.

Of course.



> > No your not. Oliver presented a Faurisson article and concluded from
> > that"C supports Nazis etc". The conclusion did not follow from what was
> > presented as evidence. I pointed this out a number of times.
>
> You wrote "Written by Faurisson himself" in response to a post by Matt
> that refers to a quote by CHomsky.

Matt wrote "but the larger context of the essay, in which Chomsky begins
by saying he is only concerned with Faurisson's freedom of speech".
Since I couldn't find any reference in the thread to any essay except
the one posted by Oliver I assumed that Matt was refering to that one
and had perhaps interpreted it is being written by Chomsky.

Do excuse me for being wrong but I was unable to find any reference to
another essay.

> Do yourself a favor and learn
> something about the topics you post about.

All along my posts have been to criticise the reasoning 'cos x supports
y's right to present his thesis therefore x supports y's thesis'.
Nothing more nothing less. Perhaps I missed a post where someone said
"hey we are now refering to another essay then the one that was posted".
I must have missed it.



> >
> > If you wish to expand the domain of evidence used then do say so. I am
> > not a mind reader you know.
> >
> > Mr ZZTop8970 during the course of this thread you posted 4 times, 3 of
> > those times you responded to my posts each time trying to suggest that C
> > is a nazi cos he is defending F's right to present his thesis.
>
> Nope. I have not done so even once. I am not suggesting the C is a
> Nazi.

My apologies all you've done so far is throw ad homs in an effort to
make yourself look good at the expense of the mistakes of others.

> I am suggseting that when you and other Chomsky groupies call
> his essay in defence of Faurisson an excercise in fighting for free
> speech

You must have me confused with another I said nothing of the sort nor am
I a Chomsky groupie (we've establish I haven't read this essay to which
you refer)

> you are either totaly ignorant of what Chomsky actually wrote

I couldn't give a fig. I dont care if C is a Nazi. All I cared about is
correcting Olivers obvious error in reasoning. You are entitled to your
interpretation.

> or worse, avoiding dealing with his support for Faurisson by eracting
> the free speech starwman.

It is irrelevant what C supports or denys. The point is what Oliver
originally posted is not evidence for his claim.

and there wasn't a strawman in sight.

> In your case, I believe it is the former, and renew my recomendation
> that you get yourself educated.

thankyou for the advice, I shall.

SNIP

matt

:p

JESUS & ELORDIETA

unread,
Jan 23, 2002, 5:53:14 AM1/23/02
to
No

"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NCn28.451$9t.4...@monolith.news.easynet.net...

john smith

unread,
Jan 23, 2002, 8:43:13 AM1/23/02
to
Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> Our dear friend digs his own grave with commendable aplomb. Even
> disregarding his laughable grasp of French intellectual history, he fails to
> produce a single instance of my supposed support for Pinochet, hoping
> instead that no one will take the trouble to expose him as a congenital liar
> and fathead.
>
> Unfortunately for him, I just have.

Ah, but "nay" and "au contraire" dear Oggie,
alas, you've done no such thing.

instead your ineptitude at defending
your arguments with either reason or logic
is seen more "like a stream of bats urine" ("one of Shaw's")
"- it shines out like gold when all else is dark."

-- John Smith
( who probably is about to be slandered and accused
by Mr. Oliver "J'accuse" Kamm of "fabricating" Shaw "quotes".


and for the rest of you,
Oggie ("Mr. Kamm") seems to live and breathe by and for Shelley's words
"the breath of accusation kills an innocent name" [Shelley]

better the devil you know...

john smith

unread,
Jan 23, 2002, 8:41:00 AM1/23/02
to

Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> Our dear friend digs his own grave with commendable aplomb. Even
> disregarding his laughable grasp of French intellectual history, he fails to
> produce a single instance of my supposed support for Pinochet, hoping
> instead that no one will take the trouble to expose him as a congenital liar
> and fathead.
>
> Unfortunately for him, I just have.

Ah, but "nay" and "au contraire" dear Oggie,
alas, you've done no so thing.

instead your ineptitude at defending
your arguments with either reason or logic
is seen more like a stream of bats urine ("one of Shaw's")
- it shines out like gold when all else is dark.

-- John Smith
( who probably is about to be slandered and accused by Mr. Oliver
"J'accuse" Kamm
of "fabricating" Shaw "quotes".


and for the rest of you,
Oggie ("Mr. Kamm") seems to live and breathe by and for Shelley's words
"the breath of accusation kills an innocent name" [Shelley]

better the devil you know...

Jez

unread,
Jan 23, 2002, 3:25:18 PM1/23/02
to

"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nWJ08.2699$Oh1.7...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> It is evident that Chomsky's links with this type of Nazism run
> deep and extends to active co-operation.
> >

Yawn yawn yawn....
http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/essays/kolodney_html
http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/essays/outlook_html
http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/essays/camera_html
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html

Ho hum
Jez


Bernard Rooney

unread,
Jan 23, 2002, 7:52:14 PM1/23/02
to
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:26:18 -0000, in
<Ppe28.354$9t.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, "Oliver Kamm"
<olive...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

> That libertarian position is one that I hold. We attack Chomsky for
>whitewashing hate and lies, by calling a Nazi 'a relatively apolitical sort
>of liberal'. Do you believe that a Nazi is a relatively apolitical sort of
>liberal? If so, you are an anti-Semite.

Is it in fact true that Chomsky called Faurisson "a relatively
apolitical sort of liberal"? Also is it true that Faurisson is a Nazi,
neo-nazi or anti-semite?

Of course I dont believe Chomsky is a anti-semite or nazi-sympathiser
himself, but if all this is true it does seem a lapse on Chomsky's
part.

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 24, 2002, 7:19:03 PM1/24/02
to
The answers to your questions are:
1. Yes
2. Yes

In the circumstances, your appended judgement must rank as understatement of
this or any other decade.

--
OLIVER KAMM

"Bernard Rooney" <b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c4f59ae...@syd-news.tpg.com.au...

Frode Vatvedt Fjeld

unread,
Jan 25, 2002, 4:11:40 AM1/25/02
to
b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) writes:

> Is it in fact true that Chomsky called Faurisson "a relatively
> apolitical sort of liberal"?

This might have been remotely interesting if it was the case that this
was Chomsky's only recorded comment on Faurisson and he refused to
explain or expand on it. In the real world however, it is abundantly
clear what Chomsky's stance towards Faurisson's views and Nazism,
anti-Semitism, and Holocaust revisionism is. But this is of course
besides the point if one is not interested in what Chomsky actually
means, but rather wants to make incredibly cheap rhetorical points,
reiterated 5 times every day.

--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld

john smith

unread,
Jan 25, 2002, 6:58:54 AM1/25/02
to

Thanks.

Lets hope this sinks in...

Dan Clore

unread,
Jan 25, 2002, 7:59:51 AM1/25/02
to
Bernard Rooney wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:26:18 -0000, in
> <Ppe28.354$9t.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, "Oliver Kamm"
> <olive...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > That libertarian position is one that I hold. We attack Chomsky for
> >whitewashing hate and lies, by calling a Nazi 'a relatively apolitical sort
> >of liberal'. Do you believe that a Nazi is a relatively apolitical sort of
> >liberal? If so, you are an anti-Semite.
>
> Is it in fact true that Chomsky called Faurisson "a relatively
> apolitical sort of liberal"?

These are his own words: "Putting this central issue aside,
is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi?
As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from
what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the
attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either
conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material
that I have read concerning him, either in the public record
or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he
is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort."

> Also is it true that Faurisson is a Nazi, neo-nazi or anti-semite?

As Chomsky says, maybe, maybe not. The point is that the
burden of proof is on those making the claim, and they have
not provided evidence that this is the case. Note in
particular that being a Holocaust Revisionist does not
necessarily imply Nazism or anti-Semitism, as there have
been a fair number of Holocaust Revisionists who were
neither Nazis nor anti-Semites.

--
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro

Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

Bernard Rooney

unread,
Jan 25, 2002, 6:56:40 PM1/25/02
to
In article <3C5156C7...@columbia-center.org>, Dan Clore
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:

> Bernard Rooney wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:26:18 -0000, in
> > <Ppe28.354$9t.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, "Oliver Kamm"
> > <olive...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > That libertarian position is one that I hold. We attack Chomsky for
> > >whitewashing hate and lies, by calling a Nazi 'a relatively apolitical sort
> > >of liberal'. Do you believe that a Nazi is a relatively apolitical sort of
> > >liberal? If so, you are an anti-Semite.
> >
> > Is it in fact true that Chomsky called Faurisson "a relatively
> > apolitical sort of liberal"?
>
> These are his own words: "Putting this central issue aside,
> is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi?
> As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from
> what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the
> attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either
> conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material
> that I have read concerning him, either in the public record
> or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he
> is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort."

ok thanks. This quote (source?) does help put this long debate in some
sort of context.

Mr Kamm has been trying awfully hard to put the word on Chomsky, but it
clearly doesnt follow from the quoted material. Chomsky says he doesnt
know his work very well, and ventures an opinion on what little he
knows.

>
> > Also is it true that Faurisson is a Nazi, neo-nazi or anti-semite?
>
> As Chomsky says, maybe, maybe not. The point is that the
> burden of proof is on those making the claim, and they have
> not provided evidence that this is the case. Note in
> particular that being a Holocaust Revisionist does not
> necessarily imply Nazism or anti-Semitism, as there have
> been a fair number of Holocaust Revisionists who were
> neither Nazis nor anti-Semites.

Kamm states that Chomsky "knew" faurisson is a nazi, but evidence for
this conclusion also is not available?

Bernard Rooney

unread,
Jan 25, 2002, 7:13:04 PM1/25/02
to
In article <Hr148.106$2a7.1...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, "Oliver
Kamm" <olive...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

> The answers to your questions are:
> 1. Yes

Based on a quote another poster has supplied:
<3C5156C7...@columbia-center.org>

"Putting this central issue aside,
is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi?
As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from
what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the
attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either
conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material
that I have read concerning him, either in the public record
or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he
is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort."

ok, I admit its true, loath as I may have been to do so. Chomsky calls
Faurisson "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort."

But as also can be seen, this quote does not mean Chomsky himself is an
anti-semite or neo-nazi, or endorses such views, whether from Faurisson
or anyone else. It doesnt follow.

> 2. Yes

So you say. But you supply no evidence. I have no real information one
way or another. It seems that Chomsky also, at least at the time he
made the quoted statement, had no info one way or the other.

>
> In the circumstances, your appended judgement must rank as understatement of
> this or any other decade.

Chomsky's judgement on Faurisson, especially as represented by you,
"seemed" a lapse on his part, but it is not, based on the source. It
rather seems I have been misled.

I've had a look now and again at the stock criticisms of chomsky, such
as this faurisson affair and the khmer rouge business. They dont stand
up to analysis at all. Is this the best that can be done by way of
criticism?

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 26, 2002, 8:47:03 AM1/26/02
to
The evidence that Chomsky knew Faurisson was a Nazi when describing him as
'a sort of relatively apolitical liberal' is provided by Chomsky himself! In
his whitewashing of Faurisson that I have just quoted, Chomsky himself
asserts that he has read the article in Esprit by Pierre Vidal-Naquet
outlining Faurisson's opinions on Nazi Germany and the Jews, all of which
are virulent pro-Nazi bigotry.

I repeat: we know Chomsky knew full well that he was promoting the benign
nature of a Nazi's bigotry, because Chomsky himself demonstrates this in his
own words.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"Bernard Rooney" <b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au> wrote in message

news:260120021056402242%b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au...

Rob Findlay

unread,
Jan 26, 2002, 5:02:22 PM1/26/02
to
In article <cny48.121$3Y.1...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, Oliver Kamm wrote:
>The evidence that Chomsky knew Faurisson was a Nazi when describing him as
>'a sort of relatively apolitical liberal' is provided by Chomsky himself! In
>his whitewashing of Faurisson that I have just quoted, Chomsky himself
>asserts that he has read the article in Esprit by Pierre Vidal-Naquet
>outlining Faurisson's opinions on Nazi Germany and the Jews, all of which
>are virulent pro-Nazi bigotry.

You can kindly furnish us a copy of the article in Esprit
By Pierre Vida-Naquet?

We'll wait,


--

New flag as issued by the Office of "Fatherland Security". .
__________________________________________________________________
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| ****** ****** ****** ** ** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| ** ** ****** ****** ** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ** ** ** ** ** ** ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| ****** ****** ****** ** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|__________________________________________________________________|
| |
|Peace & Solidarity rfindlay(@)iww.org |
|-- |
|Rob Findlay (I.U. 560) IWW |
|-- |
|http://slagnet.dhs.org http://utah.indymedia.org |
|http://iww.org http://anarchosyndicalism.org |
| |
| http://beehivecollective.8m.com |
|__________________________________________________________________|

"Why of course the people don't want war... But, after all, it is
the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always
a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy,
or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger."
-- Hermann Goering At the Nuremberg trials.

[ The comments herein are the comments of the sender and the sender
alone. NOT the Industrial Workers of the World. UNLESS explicitaly
stated otherwise. ]


Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 9:18:39 AM1/27/02
to
I've already posted extracts from it to the ng. It caused one member of the
ng, Jeffrey Ketland, to scuttle away, never to be heard from again, so
devastating and incontrovertible was the evidence - from Chomsky's own
mouth - that Chomsky was perfectly well aware that Faurisson was a Nazi,
when he (Chomsky) described this Nazi as 'a sort of relatively apolitical
liberal'.

You have made it clear that you regard it as perfectly reasonable to support
the sentiments of David Duke, and will doubtless not be as scandalised by
Chomsky's indulgence of Nazis as Ketland appears to have been.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"Rob Findlay" <slag...@billybeckloon.org> wrote in message
news:slrna569rd....@slacknet.slacknet.com...

Rob Findlay

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 10:42:23 AM1/27/02
to
In article <RWT48.293$3Y.4...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, Oliver Kamm wrote:
>I've already posted extracts from it to the ng. It caused one member of the
>ng, Jeffrey Ketland, to scuttle away, never to be heard from again, so
>devastating and incontrovertible was the evidence - from Chomsky's own
>mouth - that Chomsky was perfectly well aware that Faurisson was a Nazi,
>when he (Chomsky) described this Nazi as 'a sort of relatively apolitical
>liberal'.

So we only your own supplied quotations? You cannot provides us with links
to actual archived copies can you? we're supposed to take your word for it?

No thank you Monkey Man. You've already demonstrated here that you're a
liar of the higest order.


>You have made it clear that you regard it as perfectly reasonable to support
>the sentiments of David Duke,

Liar.


>and will doubtless not be as scandalised by
>Chomsky's indulgence of Nazis as Ketland appears to have been.

Don't count on it beefy tits.

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 11:09:10 AM1/27/02
to
To my knowledge, the article from Esprit is not available on-line.
Vidal-Naquet quotes from his own article extensively in his remarkable work
on Holocaust deniers, Assassins of Memory, available here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231074581/qid=1012147275/sr=1-4/ref=
sr_1_11_4/102-0679845-2679353

Chomsky himself states in the article he wrote in defence of the Nazi bigot
Faurisson that he had read Vidal-Naquet's article.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"Rob Findlay" <slag...@billybeckloon.org> wrote in message

news:slrna587uv....@slacknet.slacknet.com...

Rob Findlay

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 1:03:14 PM1/27/02
to
In article <qyV48.321$3Y.4...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, Oliver Kamm wrote:
>To my knowledge, the article from Esprit is not available on-line.
>Vidal-Naquet quotes from his own article extensively in his remarkable work
>on Holocaust deniers, Assassins of Memory, available here:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231074581/qid=1012147275/sr=1-4/ref=
>sr_1_11_4/102-0679845-2679353

This is it? No one has a copy of what chomsky ACTUALLY read? I'm supposed to
secondary sources at face value?

No thanks Monkey Man, I'll leave that to you.

By the way I have just forwarded a complaint to your news providor for
your continued net-abuse via top posting.

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 2:01:47 PM1/27/02
to
Why yes, Mr Findlay: everyone who is educated on this subject has a copy of
what Chomsky read. How come you haven't? You do, however, have the great
benefit of a link from me to Vidal-Naquet's account (you do read French,
don't you?).

Let me blunt. You have demonstrated a quite non-existent grasp of politics.
You have even claimed that the Ku Klux Klan, which your friend Samirhibri so
sympathises with, was anti-Arab 'the last time you checked' (you don't check
anything, do you, old bean?). That is hilariously ignorant in itself: the
KKK *supports* Noam Chomsky's views on 9-11, and *supports* the activities
of al-Qaeda in murdering Americans. You didn't know that, did you, Robby?
But no wonder you've said so much to support Samirhibriwhose views on the
Jews exactly accord with the filth of the KKK.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"Rob Findlay" <slag...@billybeckloon.org> wrote in message

news:slrna58g72....@slacknet.slacknet.com...

Rob Findlay

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 3:40:48 PM1/27/02
to
In article <i4Y48.358$3Y.5...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, Oliver Kamm wrote:
>Why yes, Mr Findlay: everyone who is educated on this subject has a copy of
>what Chomsky read. How come you haven't? You do, however, have the great
>benefit of a link from me to Vidal-Naquet's account (you do read French,
>don't you?).
>
>Let me blunt. You have demonstrated a quite non-existent grasp of politics.
>You have even claimed that the Ku Klux Klan, which your friend Samirhibri so
>sympathises with, was anti-Arab 'the last time you checked' (you don't check
>anything, do you, old bean?). That is hilariously ignorant in itself: the
>KKK *supports* Noam Chomsky's views on 9-11, and *supports* the activities
>of al-Qaeda in murdering Americans. You didn't know that, did you, Robby?
>But no wonder you've said so much to support Samirhibriwhose views on the
>Jews exactly accord with the filth of the KKK.
>

Looks like I struck a nerve with Monkey Man! Most excellent! BTW have you
picked out the real doll you want yet?

Justin Felux

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 6:09:30 PM1/27/02
to
Are you from France or another another place in which French is a prominent
language?


Rob Findlay

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 8:12:17 PM1/27/02
to
In article <u58r79j...@corp.supernews.com>, Justin Felux wrote:
>Are you from France or another another place in which French is a prominent
>language?

Kamm is using sources that he knows hardly anyone can double check in
this newsgroup. How many of us speak and read French?

He's doing this because Kamm is a lying sack of Monkey Shit.

john smith

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 10:10:47 AM1/28/02
to


a very good reminder for both old and new readers of usenet groups...

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 7:41:51 PM1/28/02
to
All those who are educated can at least read French, Mr Findlay.

--
OLIVER KAMM
"Rob Findlay" <slag...@billybeckloon.org> wrote in message

news:slrna599bh....@slacknet.slacknet.com...

Rob Findlay

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 7:42:06 PM1/28/02
to
In article <29m58.180$TY3.1...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, Oliver Kamm wrote:
>All those who are educated can at least read French, Mr Findlay.
>

BUWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

D.Teale

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 8:02:43 PM1/28/02
to

"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:29m58.180$TY3.1...@monolith.news.easynet.net...

> All those who are educated can at least read French, Mr Findlay.
>

Il est faux. Je parle francais, et aussi je suis "hilariously ignorant".
Voila, un grand farce. (excusez mon ordinateur, il n'a pas les accents)

Justin Felux

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 10:49:42 PM1/28/02
to

Rob Findlay wrote in message ...

>In article <29m58.180$TY3.1...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, Oliver Kamm
wrote:
>>All those who are educated can at least read French, Mr Findlay.
>>
>
>BUWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA
>


How did I know that was coming? You know, I bet Mr. Kamm's ability to speak
French coupled with his charming and witty personality would make him quite
popular with the ladies. Too bad he spends the majority of his time on the
internet writing lengthy and insulting rants directed at a juvenile.


Rob Findlay

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 9:58:36 PM1/28/02
to
I suppose we can add 'elitist' to the many labels that could be ascribed
to Monkey Man Kamm.

Really Kamm's comment is pathetic and insulting.

Justin Felux

unread,
Jan 29, 2002, 12:06:53 AM1/29/02
to

Justin Felux:

>>How did I know that was coming? You know, I bet Mr. Kamm's ability to
speak
>>French coupled with his charming and witty personality would make him
quite
>>popular with the ladies. Too bad he spends the majority of his time on
the
>>internet writing lengthy and insulting rants directed at a juvenile.

Rob Findlay:


>I suppose we can add 'elitist' to the many labels that could be ascribed
>to Monkey Man Kamm.
>
>Really Kamm's comment is pathetic and insulting.


Of course it is. It is of course completely illogical as well. I'm sure
there have been/are many people who didn't/don't speak French. Mr. Kamm
certainly displays personality traits of an elitist character, but I cannot
imagine ANY class of people, no matter how self-absorbed they are, ever
enjoying the company of Oliver Kamm. I am inclined to think that his
personality is some kind of online alter-ego. If that is not the case, then
i think it's safe to assume that his number of friends is zero. Or you
could even go a step further and count each one of his enemies as a negative
friend, in which case he would have about -500 friends.


0 new messages