Chomsky's indulgence of Nazis
Oliver Kamm
"Les Assassins de la Memoire" (1992), discussing Chomsky's whitewashing of
the Nazi Robert Faurisson:
"If Chomsky had restricted himself to defending Faurisson's right to free
speech, from my point of view [and mine. OK] there would not be any Chomsky
problem. But that is not the issue....
"It will suffice for me to observe: 1) that he went considerably further
than was generally believed in his personal support of Faurisson [who had
published anti-Semitic claims of the supposed threat that the Jews posed to
Germany], exchanging friendly letters with him, accepting even to be
prefaced by the leader of the revisionist league Pierre Guillaume (while
claiming - mendaciously - that he had not written a preface for Faurisson),
characterising Guillaime [a Nazi] as 'libertarian and antifascist on
principle' (which must have provoked some hilarity from the interested
party, since he regards antifascism as fundamentally mendacious); 2) that he
has not remained faithful to his own libertarian principles since he - whom
the slightest legal action against Faurisson throws into a fit - went so far
as to threaten a publisher with a lawsuit over a biographical note
concerning him in which several sentences had the misfortune of displeasing
him. And in fact, he succeeded in having the biographical note in question
assigned to a more loyal editor."
Chomsky's demonstrable dishonesty and indulgence towards Nazis are repellent
for those of us who admire his work on linguistics and who stand on the
political left. But I am at least able to circumvent his bullying attacks on
free speech by reproducing the comments he succeeded in censoring for an
American audience. They come from Geoffrey Sampson's contribution on Chomksy
to The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thinkers: "[Chomsky] forfeited authority
as a political commentator by a series of actions widely regarded as
ill-judged (repeated polemics minimising the Khmer Rouge atrocities in
Cambodia; endorsement of a book - which Chomsky admitted he had not read -
that denied the historical reality of the Jewish Holocaust)."
I am pleased to be able to advance on this list the cause of anti-fascism
and a libertarian insistence on the right of free speech, against Chomsky's
cheerleading for Nazis and his attempts to censor the words of those who try
to bring him to account for his actions.
Oliver Kamm
Oliver Kamm
Oliver Kamm
Oliver Kamm
Jerry Vaughan
I have no idea what this spat is about, but, as a new subscriber, I find the
contributions interesting and well-informed even where I disagree with them. May
I
make a plea that this sort of thing stops straightaway?
Dan Clore
> I have no idea what this spat is about, but, as a new subscriber, I find the
> contributions interesting and well-informed even where I disagree with them. May
> I
> make a plea that this sort of thing stops straightaway?
Swine who have no purpose except to repeat lies and libels about Chomsky
constantly infest the newsgroup. The best thing to do is killfile/ignore
them. They aren't going to stop....
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
Oliver Kamm
should desist immediately from whitewshing Nazi propagandists, and I urge
subscribers to communicate this message unambiguously. It's time we had some
real left-wing thinking round here, instead of Chomsky's indulgence of Nazis
and fawning on the Khmer Rouge.
Oliver Kamm
Jerry Vaughan wrote in message <3647514F...@flash.net>...
>Gentlemen,
>
>I have no idea what this spat is about, but, as a new subscriber, I find
the
>contributions interesting and well-informed even where I disagree with
them. May
>I
>make a plea that this sort of thing stops straightaway?
>
Jon Duncan
Oliver Kamm wrote in message
<7281qp$q4t$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>I devoutly share Mr Vaughan's wish that the eponymous hero of this list
>should desist immediately from whitewshing Nazi propagandists, and I urge
>subscribers to communicate this message unambiguously. It's time we had
some
>real left-wing thinking round here, instead of Chomsky's indulgence of
Nazis
>and fawning on the Khmer Rouge.
>
>Oliver Kamm
>
Is this a new anti-Chosmky claim? Chomsky has not only performed his alleged
misdeads in the distant past but is still doing them? Don't bother
presenting evidence for this because you have not come close to providing
proof that he committed the misdeeds in the first place.
If you'd like to see more left-wing thinking, Kamm, I suggest you contribute
some of your own. I admitt it will be hard to take seriously the words of
someone who deliberately framed a quote to make it appear that Chomsky
declared a known Nazi to an "apolitical liberal" when the actual quote had a
completely different meaning.
Jon
aba...@compuserve.com
check his knowledge on the french " ultra-left " that will bring some other
general questions and considerations.
I doubt Mr Kamm's knowledge of the french " ultra left " goes beyond what he
found in Cohn and Vidal-Naquet's books. As, at least, Vidal-Naquet can read
french, let's not waste time with Cohn.
In the book Mr Kamm quotes, " Les Assassins de la memoire ", Vidal-Naquet
writes : " La Vieille Taupe is, let's keep it in mind, a bookshop that
became a publisher that we could call, let's say, anarcho-marxist. " page 21,
of the 1987 edition at " La Decouverte ", my tranlation. ( Let's notice that
Vidal-Naquet's text had quite a few editions and reprint, including
paperback. Answers to his book had to remain in underground distribution or
in private hands, due to the legislation in France. )
Pierre Guillaume is the founder of both the bookshop ( in the 60's ) and the
publishing house ( in the 80's ). Mr Kamm says he is a nazi. Vidal-Naquet
calls him anarcho-marxist.
Further in the book, pp. 155 to 160 of the 1987 ed., Vidal-Naquet gives some
more indications on La Vieille Taupe's political background ( with some
disputable analysis that I won't discuss here ). We find :
" Socialisme ou Barbarie " ( Cornelius Castoriadis, J.-F. Lyotard... ) of
which Guillaume was a young activist in the early 60's.
" Pouvoir ouvrier " after the split of Soc. ou Bar. ( Guillaume was also
involved ), then " La jeune taupe ", " La Guerre Sociale ", some ultra-left
groups in the 70's.
Vidal-Naquet ignores the long " association " of Guillaume with Guy Debord,
founder of " Internationale Situationniste ", a radical artistic turned
political movement which lucidity is still commonly praised today ( when most
of the leftist groups of the 60's are looked down ). La Vieille Taupe (
bookshop ) was for some time the main diffusion place of their review.
Vidal-Naquet also quotes Bordiga ( Italian left ). Bordiga's critique of
anti-fascism surely influenced Guillaume. It has nothing to do with nazism.
In note 69, p. 221, Vidal-Naquet recalls that in the seventies he joined the
campaign led by La Vieille Taupe ( and Guillaume ) among others to free a
spanish anarchist under a death sentence, Puig-Antich.
He also refers to S. Quadruppani and " La Banquise " which took some time -
as late as 1983 - to try to get rid of their association with Guillaume and
La Vieille Taupe ( and still in 1996, with a foreword by Gilles Perrault and
at the anti-fascist editor " Reflex " felt the need to make a point in a book
called " Libertaires et ultra-gauches contre le revisionnisme ". ).
So, if Mr Kamm has read Vidal-Naquet's book ( and not an appropriate digest ),
I'd like to know his opinion on what we can guess of Guillaume's political
background, given the fact that, up to now, he never claimed any change in his
political line ?
For the record, Guillaume has published B. Lazarre's " L'Antisemitisme ", and
also Israel Shahak.
Now there's also a charge that Chomsky's "unpublished answers to his
parisian detractors " ( 1984 ) had a foreword by Pierre Guillaume. It may be
worth noticing that the publisher of this book is " Spartacus " editions (
hum, under that name, the great leftist scholar, Mr Kamm, should be able to
prove that it is a nazi publisher ). This publisher also issued books by ( to
name only those who might be familiar to Mr Kamm ) : Marx, Engels, Stirner,
R. Luxembourg, Kautsky, Berneri, Charles Reeve... all well-known nazis, for
sure.
So I come to wonder : what is a nazi ?
What evidence has Mr Kamm to state that Guillaume is a nazi or antisemite (
against his main reference Vidal-Naquet )?
Does he have more evidence about Faurisson ? ( Who's only fame before he
became known as the great revisionist satan consisted in controversial theses
about Rimbaud, Lautreamont, Nerval, - again nazi literary references ??? Bah
! )
I mean : evidence that he is a NAZI, not that some antisemite prejudices can
be traced in private letters or some out of context quotes !
I guess to Mr Kamm, Faurisson is a nazi because he disputes the gas chamber
issue, and Guillaume because he publishes him ( kind of tautology ). Back in
the 30's, Mr Kamm would have called a nazi anybody arguing about conditions
in U.S.S.R., or may be " rabid dog " that doesn't deserve the bullet that
will kill him. It must be Kamm's opinion about real leftist issues.
I noticed there are unfortunately a lot of prejudiced people all over the
world. Some people are prejudiced as well against jews. They are not all
nazis, fortunately. They may be one day falling in the nazi's propaganda, but
as far as I know, groups claiming nazi ideology have no noticeable influence
nowdays.
So, either Mr Kamm doesn't know what he is talking about or his vision is
merely a reflexion of the jewish conspiracy theory.
I didn't expect to make him change his mind, but mainly wanted to give a few
facts that may be difficult to discover as well as to understand if you don't
know the french context.
D.Abalain
> >Oliver Kamm wrote:
> >
> >> More in sadness than anger, here the anti-Nazi Pierre Vidal-Naquet, from
> >> "Les Assassins de la Memoire" (1992), discussing Chomsky's whitewashing
> of
> >> the Nazi Robert Faurisson:
> >>
> >> "If Chomsky had restricted himself to defending Faurisson's right to free
> >> speech, from my point of view [and mine. OK] there would not be any
> Chomsky
> >> problem. But that is not the issue....
> >>
> >> "It will suffice for me to observe: 1) that he went considerably further
> >> than was generally believed in his personal support of Faurisson [who had
> >> published anti-Semitic claims of the supposed threat that the Jews posed
> to
> >> Germany], exchanging friendly letters with him, accepting even to be
> >> prefaced by the leader of the revisionist league Pierre Guillaume (while
> >> claiming - mendaciously - that he had not written a preface for
> Faurisson),
> >> characterising Guillaime [a Nazi] as 'libertarian and antifascist on
> >> principle' (which must have provoked some hilarity from the interested
> >> party, since he regards antifascism as fundamentally mendacious);
(...)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Anarchist
Oliver Kamm <olive...@virgin.net> wrote:
>I devoutly share Mr Vaughan's wish that the eponymous hero of this list
>should desist immediately from whitewshing Nazi propagandists, and I urge
>subscribers to communicate this message unambiguously. It's time we had some
>real left-wing thinking round here, instead of Chomsky's indulgence of Nazis
>and fawning on the Khmer Rouge.
>
>Oliver Kamm
Give it a rest, Oliver... we know that youre either a right-wing "Libertarian"
or a fascistic Zionist trying to twist the facts in an attempt to
smear Chomsky, just like James Donald always does.
Anarchist
Anarchist
Anarchist
Anarchist
David Graeber
<jo...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> If you'd like to see more left-wing thinking, Kamm, I suggest you contribute
> some of your own. I admitt it will be hard to take seriously the words of
> someone who deliberately framed a quote to make it appear that Chomsky
> declared a known Nazi to an "apolitical liberal" when the actual quote had a
> completely different meaning.
There is not the slightest evidence that Kamm is a
left-winger of any kind. One day when I was extremely
bored I did a little Alta Vista search for his name
and discovered he mainly contributes to a group
discussing neoclassical economics, and posts to the
public Amazon.com contribute-your-own-review section.
The latter consist mostly of scathing reviews of
anything by Chomsky, though I happened to notice
also (a) a glowing review of "Not out of Africa",
and (b) a remarkably civil and friendly review of Pat
Buchannon's (sp?) "Right From The Start" (especially in
comparison with his comments on Chomsky!), where he
makes absolutely no criticism whatever of PB's
extreme right-wing positions on just about every
issue, but _merely_ takes the author to task for
his opposition to NAFTA and other "free trade"
legislation, on the grounds that PB doesn't understand
economics. I note he assumes from the start that Buchannon's
intentions are good, just as he condemns Chomsky's
in every way possible.
It's especially amusing because one of things
Buchannon has been most widely criticized for is his
ardent defense of Nazi camp guards resisting
deportation from the U.S. for war crimes trials.
DG
jott...@my-dejanews.com
> It's especially amusing because one of things
> Buchannon has been most widely criticized for is his
> ardent defense of Nazi camp guards resisting
> deportation from the U.S. for war crimes trials.
> DG
>
In fact Buchanan was right issue. First of all nobody was ever deported for
being a Nazi camp guard or given a war crimes trial in the US by the OSI
(Office of Special Investigations). In the case of Demjanjuk, the most famous
of these cases Buchanan was vindicated by history. The Israeli Supreme Court
acquited Demjanjuk on appeal and the US Sixth District Appeals Court ruled
that OSI had perpetrated "fraud upon the court" in the Demjanjuk case.
The war crimes issue is much more complicated than Dr. Graeber presents. The
Soviet government actively sought to portray Balts and Ukrainians as "Nazi
war criminals" in order to discredit the causes of Baltic and Ukrainian
independence in the international community and among the US public and
government in particular. They found a willing partner in this endevour in
the OSI (Office of SpecialInvestigations, US Department of Justice.) In the
vast majority of OSI cases against Baltic and Ukrainian nationals (With few
exceptions all OSI cases involved naturalized US citizens from the Baltics or
Ukraine) the only evidence presented were videotaped depositions taken in
Soviet occupied territory and conducted by Soviet procurators under Soviet
law. This was the equivalent of seeking to deport Black South Africans on
charges of "terrorism" to apartheid South Africa solely on the basis of
videotaped depositions from South Africa provided by the South African
government and conducted under South Africanlaw.
In the case of Karl Linnas Ramsey Clark and Pat Buchanan were the only two
prominent Americans to oppose the grotesque lack of due process afforded to a
law abiding and patriotic naturalzed citizen, based upon the fact that he was
an enemy of Soviet rule over Estonia. Linnas was tried in absentia by the
Soviet Union in Tartu Jan. 1962, the Soviet procurator published the results
of the trial in December 1961. The evidence against Linnas consisted of four
witnesses. Only one witness claimed to have seen Linnas commit any
attrocities. OSI's denaturalization and deportation case against Linnas (He
was never afforded his constitutional right as a US citizen to a criminal
trial) relied upon videotaped testimonies of these same four witnesses
videotaped in Soviet occupied Estonia and conducted under the laws of the
ESSR. These witnesses were never cross examined. The one witness that claimed
to have seen Linnas shoot prisoners admitted to suffering from memory loss as
a result of injuries he sufferred in Soviet incarceration. Linnas was shipped
to the USSR where he died, not on the basis of war crimes, but because he did
not voluntarily tell US immigration authorities that he was a member of the
Omakaitse (Estonian Home Guard) during WWII. There was never sufficient
evidence to achieve a conviction of Linnas in a criminal trial. This is why
OSI pursued denaturalization and deportation instead of criminal trials. It
was the only way they could get any convictions.
Calling somebody a Nazi does not make them one.
J. Otto Pohl
Werner Cohn
>
>Pierre Guillaume is the founder of both the bookshop ( in the 60's ) and
the
>publishing house ( in the 80's ). Mr Kamm says he is a nazi. Vidal-Naquet
>calls him anarcho-marxist.
In point of fact he is now a Nazi, although at some time in the past he had
ultra-leftist connections.
>Vidal-Naquet also quotes Bordiga ( Italian left ). Bordiga's critique of
>anti-fascism surely influenced Guillaume. It has nothing to do with nazism.
Like Mussolini and other Fascists and Nazis, Guillaume was at one time
influenced by authentic left-wing personalities.
>
>For the record, Guillaume has published B. Lazarre's " L'Antisemitisme ",
and
>also Israel Shahak.
It is true that Guillaume published a very old tract by the Jewish writer
Bernard Lazare (note spelling !). It was a thoroughly dishonest
publication, taking L's work completely out of context. This publication
was repudiated by the friends and family of the author.
Concerning Shahak. Here the fit between writer and publisher is very close.
Shahak's screed is a pathetic recapitulation of classic anti-Semitic
propaganda. Among other claims is Shahak's assertions that the Ukrainian
massacres of Jews in the 17th century were "progressive" uprisings. Noam
Chomsky, who has endorsed so many other anti-Semites, has also endorsed this
particular book of Shahak's ("Jewish History, Jewish Religion") as follows:
"Shahak is an outstanding scholar with remarkable insight and depth of
knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating,a contribution of great
value."
>
>Now there's also a charge that Chomsky's "unpublished answers to his
>parisian detractors " ( 1984 ) had a foreword by Pierre Guillaume. It may
be
>worth noticing that the publisher of this book is " Spartacus " editions (
>hum, under that name, the great leftist scholar, Mr Kamm, should be able to
>prove that it is a nazi publisher ). This publisher also issued books by (
to
>name only those who might be familiar to Mr Kamm ) : Marx, Engels, Stirner,
>R. Luxembourg, Kautsky, Berneri, Charles Reeve... all well-known nazis, for
>sure.
Guillaume has taken over the name of several publishers that formerly
published works by authentic left-wing figures. Today, nobody on the
authentic left, not the Communists, not the Socialists, not the Trotskyists,
will have anything to do with him or with Thion, his collaborator.
On the other hand, Guillaume and Faurisson entertain close relations with
the neo-Nazi Front National of Jean-Marie Le Pen.
Anyone who is interested in the relationship between these friends of
Chomsky and the contemporary Nazi movement in France should read the
following excellent collection of essays:
NEGATIONNISTES: LES CHIFFONNIERS DE L'HISTOIRE, edited by Alain Bihr, and
others, Editions Golias, Paris, 1997. This book can be ordered on the
website of FNAC, the French book dealer.
Tut...@nospam.nothere.net
responding to rebuttals. Perhaps your points would actually be
considered if you would support them in debate. You seem more
interested in posting unquestioned monologues than any sort of
reasoned discourse. You sully your academic credentials.
jott...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Concerning Shahak. Here the fit between writer and publisher is very close.
> Shahak's screed is a pathetic recapitulation of classic anti-Semitic
> propaganda. Among other claims is Shahak's assertions that the Ukrainian
> massacres of Jews in the 17th century were "progressive" uprisings. Noam
> Chomsky, who has endorsed so many other anti-Semites, has also endorsed this
> particular book of Shahak's ("Jewish History, Jewish Religion") as follows:
> "Shahak is an outstanding scholar with remarkable insight and depth of
> knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating,a contribution of great
> value."
In point of fact the 1648 Ukrainian uprising under Bohden Khmelnytsky was very
progressive. Orest Subtelny's *Ukraine a History* Second Edition (U. Toronto,
1994) is the best existing history of Ukraine in English. All my quotations
below are taken from this work.
"In other words, in newly colonized Ukraine, some of Europe's most exploitive
feudal lords confronted some of its most defiant masses." p. 123.
"Formerly unburdened peasants were suddenly forced to provide their lords
sith three or four days of labor a week. In addition, they had to furnish
noblemen landowneres with assorted personal services, while at the same time
continuing to pay a tax on their homes and farm animals to the royal
treasury. To make matters worse, the magnates in Ukraine frequently resorted
to the hated practice of *arenda, or leasing, in which the leaseholder
(arenda) agreed that anything he could squeeze out of the peasants above a
set figure was his profit. Forbidden to own land, but allowed to lease it,
Jews often became leaseholders. Thus, on the vast lands of the Ostrorog
family, for example, there were about 4000 Jewish leaseholders, and in 1616,
over half the crown lands in Ukraine were leased out to Jewish entrepaneurs.
Because they had to make good their investments in a relatively short period
of two or three years, they exploited the properties and peasants
mercilessly, without regard to future consequences. It was not uncommon for a
leaseholder to demand six or seven days of labor from the peasant and, with
the help of the magnates' minions, to drive them into the fields. Another
form of leaseholding was the leasing out of an estate's monopoly on the
production and sale of alcohol and tabacco to a leaseholder, who then charged
the peasants whatever price he wished for these prized commodities. Needless
to say, such practices did not make Jews popular with the Ukrainian
population. As Engtlish historian Norman Daqvies puts it, Jewish
participation in the oppressive practices of the noble/Jewish alliance
"provided the most important single cause of the terrible retribution which
would descent upon them on several occasions in the future." p. 124
If I lived under such oppressive conditions I would certainly follow a leader
who could deliver on the promise to kill the leaselord who abused and
exploited me. In fact Khmlnytsky's 1648 Ukrainian uprising like other
revolutions by slaves (Sparticus, John Brown, Vorkuta, etc,) was progressive
by its very nature. Here you had enserfed and oppressed humans killing those
who engaged in the oppression and profitted from it. Herr Cohen's
anti-Ukrainian bigotry is no more acceptable than Father Coughlin's
anti-semitism.
J. Otto Pohl
Oliver Kamm
evidence and scientific reasoning is the most obvious characteristic of this
apercu.
The old conspiracy theory of Jews' being closet fascists comes straight out
of Lyndon LaRouche, appropriately enough: one ultra-right barking conspiracy
theorist on a list notably similar.
Oliver Kamm
Anarchist wrote in message <72b70g$d...@tiger.tigerden.com>...
Oliver Kamm
issue.
He condemns himself perfectly adequately out of his own mouth.
Oliver Kamm
aba...@compuserve.com wrote in message <72aarp$5bd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Oliver Kamm
I'm touched - really - that Mr Graeber, in whom I have no interest
whatsoever, should have such an empty life that he wishes to trace me; but I
do think he should have made sure he was sober before doing so. I have never
posted a review of Pat Buchanan's (note the spelling, Mr Graeber; he's only
a well-known presidential candidate in your own country, whose name appears
in the newspapers and on televison constantly, so I admit it's unfair to
expect you to have heard of him) Right from the Start. The book I reviewed
was his latest, "The Great Betrayal"; and I commend my review to
subscribers. It is highly critical, awarding the book the lowest possible
score, in which I excoriate the author's programme.
And I condemn it in the same terms as I condemn Buchanan's equivalent,
Chomsky. Buchanan is actually the equivalent of Chomsky: he whitewashes
Nazis, he has a visceral opposition to democracy, and he's an economic
ignoramus who believes the same things as Chomsky. If you see my review of
Chomsky's risible "Year 501", you will see that I criticise it because it
has the identical economic programme to Pat Buchanan;s campaign. And both
Chomsky and Buchanan are wild conspiracy theorists.
I plead guilty to being a civil and friendly man, and a notably fair-minded
one at that. I can generously comment that Buchanan writes well, at the same
time as condemning his views. And I can admire Chomsky as a linguist, at the
same time as condemning HIS views. And I condemn both sets of views for the
same reasons: they're bigoted, xenophobic, simple-minded, admiring of
tyranny, and sympathetic to Nazis.
Mr Graeber, who plainly never studied economics, needs to work out what
neo-classical economics means. The list I contributed to was the
Post-Keynesian list - most of whose members consider themselves to be
Socialists or Marxists.
Glad to be of service.
Oliver Kamm
David Graeber wrote in message ...
aba...@compuserve.com
"Werner Cohn" <wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> In article <72aarp$5bd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, aba...@compuserve.com wrote:
>
> >
> the
> >publishing house ( in the 80's ). Mr Kamm says he is a nazi. Vidal-Naquet
> >calls him anarcho-marxist.
>
What evidence do you have that he is now a nazi ? ( unlike what Vidal-Naquet
writes )
Besides whether he is NOW a nazi or not is irrelevant in Mr Kamm 's
problematic. I guess I know the kind of " argument " about
Guillaume-beeing-a-nazi you may pick up in your french data, quoted below (
they don't convince me, though I may not agree with everything he did as the
pressure - social, physical, legal - against him increased in the 80's, with
consideration to the little choice he had ).
It is irrelevant because it took place long after Chomsky wrote about
Guillaume. You can't expect Chomsky to be a prophet. He talked about
Guillaume's background in the early 80's.
Moreover, when you write "...although at some time in the past he had
ultra-leftist connections.", it is deceitful at best.
From 1960 ( he was 19 and joined " Socialisme ou Barbarie " )to somewhere in
the 1980's, nobody challenged that he was an ultra-left activist, with an
influential role in the most radical and lucid groups of his time. cf. my
message.
That is a long life of ultra-left " activism ", and again, he never claimed
any change in his political line.
>
> >
> >For the record, Guillaume has published B. Lazarre's " L'Antisemitisme ",
> and
> >also Israel Shahak.
>
> It is true that Guillaume published a very old tract by the Jewish writer
> Bernard Lazare (note spelling !). It was a thoroughly dishonest
> publication, taking L's work completely out of context. This publication
> was repudiated by the friends and family of the author. (...)
Was it repudiated by Lazare in his life time ?
Would you repudiate it today ? Why do you need to " repudiate " books ? Better
read them and judge by yourself.
It is a reference book. Guillaume published it and mentions other works by
Lazare as " complementary ". How is it " dishonest " ? Today, ultra-left
editor " Allia " has published some more texts by Lazare. They may show an
evolution, but I personally can't see any contradiction with "
l'Antisemitisme ".
(...)
> Guillaume has taken over the name of several publishers that formerly
> published works by authentic left-wing figures. (...)
Any evidence ? It is simply false.
" Spartacus " still exists and publishes ultra-left or anarchist books.
Guillaume already published with them in the 70's and could still help
publishing Chomsky's texts in 1984. So you have to prove that " Spartacus "
is a nazi publisher.
Or give some proof of Guillaume's take-over ?
(...)Today, nobody on the
> authentic left, not the Communists, not the Socialists, not the Trotskyists,
> will have anything to do with him or with Thion, his collaborator.
>
They indeed never had anything to do with french " Communists " ( stalinians
), " Socialists " ( Mitterand, the former Petainist ! ), or " Trotskyists "
-leninist cults. You again show only your ignorance of the french ultra-left
!!!!!
" Authentic left ", dear !!!!!
> On the other hand, Guillaume and Faurisson entertain close relations with
> the neo-Nazi Front National of Jean-Marie Le Pen.
>
> Anyone who is interested in the relationship between these friends of
> Chomsky and the contemporary Nazi movement in France should read the
> following excellent collection of essays:
>
> NEGATIONNISTES: LES CHIFFONNIERS DE L'HISTOIRE, edited by Alain Bihr, and
> others, Editions Golias, Paris, 1997. This book can be ordered on the
> website of FNAC, the French book dealer.
>
Sorry, I didn't notice that you could read french.
Golias ( catholic left !!! must be " authentic " in your terms )have been
involved in news manipulations. Not reliable to me, but read what you like
and think what you want. I again would rather suggest " Libertaires et
ultra-gauches contre le revisionnisme ", Ed. Reflex, for what it's worth.
O.K. enough time waste.
D.Abalain
Seth Kulick
Oliver Kamm <olive...@virgin.net> wrote:
>The author evidently regards opposition to Nazism as not a real leftist
>issue.
>
>He condemns himself perfectly adequately out of his own mouth.
>
>Oliver Kamm
>
>aba...@compuserve.com wrote in message <72aarp$5bd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
This seems a bit unfair. I didn't see anything in abalain's posting that
suggested that opposition to Nazism is not a leftist issue. The question
is whether Guillaume and Thion are Nazis, who should therefore be
opposed by the left the way any Nazis should be opposed.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Kulick "The hypnotic splattered mist
University of Pennsylvania was slowly lifting" - Bob Dylan
sku...@linc.cis.upenn.edu http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~skulick/home.html
David Graeber
<olive...@virgin.net> wrote:
> The author evidently regards opposition to Nazism as not a real leftist
> issue.
>
> He condemns himself perfectly adequately out of his own mouth.
I said I've seen zero evidence you were,
as you claim, left-wing. You again dodge
the question - unless, that is, you mean
to suggest that _only_ a leftist would
oppose Nazism! Is that what you mean to
suggest?
DG
Anarchist
Actualy you are wrong. I conclude that Zionists are fascists because of the
way they treat the Palestinians in Israel. A better term would
probabaly be "Isreali Nationalists".
My guess is you arn't one of them, but a free-market "Libertarian"
pretending to be a "leftist" who doesnt like Chomsky.
Anarchist
---
In article <72h5ub$iuv$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>,
Oliver Kamm
not least on a list so committed to the thesis of the Jewish conspiracy
theory.
If you want a discussion on economics, I shall be happy to dispense some
advice on that subject to you - though you should make sure beforehand that
you satisfy the minimal requirements to be considered half-way educated on
the subject, in a way that Mr Graaber - who amusingly enough is under the
impression that J.M.Keynes, who believed that market economies were
cyclically unstable (see the General Theory of Employment Interest and
Money), was a neo-classical economist - rather embarrassingly obviously
hasn't.
Oliver Kamm
Anarchist wrote in message <72jc7h$v...@tiger.tigerden.com>...
Oliver Kamm
economics, I also evidently need to introduce him to the elements of English
comprehension.
No, old bean; read what I said. I don't regard opposition of Nazism as
exclusively a left-wing concern, nor did I say it was. I regard condemnation
of Nazism as a prerequisite of any left-wing stance worthy of the name.
Given that you quite explicitly can't see anything wrong with whitewashing a
known Nazi, I wouldn't necessarily expect you to grasp this point, but I
would expect you to understand English.
Oliver Kamm
David Graeber wrote in message ...
>In article <72h627$ivf$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>, "Oliver Kamm"
David Graeber
Oliver Kamm <olive...@virgin.net> wrote:
>Oh dear; not only do I have to educate Mr Graeber on the principles of
>economics, I also evidently need to introduce him to the elements of English
>comprehension.
I am not aware we have differed on
the subject of economics.
As for English comprehension:
clearly the shoe is on the other foot.
>No, old bean; read what I said. I don't regard opposition of Nazism as
>exclusively a left-wing concern, nor did I say it was. I regard condemnation
>of Nazism as a prerequisite of any left-wing stance worthy of the name.
>Given that you quite explicitly can't see anything wrong with whitewashing a
>known Nazi, I wouldn't necessarily expect you to grasp this point, but I
>would expect you to understand English.
I don't know why I'm even replying to
a notorious troll but the actual course of
conversation was:
a) I said there is no evidence you
are a leftist, and I believe you are lying
when you say you are
b) you said 'isn't denouncing
Nazis a leftist issue'?
c) I replied that denouncing Nazis
is not itself a proof you are left-wing,
unless, of course, you mean to suggest that
only a left-winger would denounce a Nazi.
My English comprehension is fine.
Actually I suspect yours is too; you are
simply once again trying to change the
subject from your pretty obviously false
claims that you are a leftist to your
preferred lie, that Chomsky knowingly
whitewashed a Nazi, which has been
definitely smashed and shown to be utterly
slanderous and deceitful over and over
again.
Actually, I am beginning to
wonder whether you yourself are actually
a Nazi. It's pretty unlikely, but you
seem to have taken your techniques of
argument directly out of the pages of
Goebbels.
DG
David Graeber
<jott...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>
>> It's especially amusing because one of things
>> Buchannon has been most widely criticized for is his
>> ardent defense of Nazi camp guards resisting
>> deportation from the U.S. for war crimes trials.
>> DG
>>
>
[various detailed corrections
deleted]
Well, that's interesting. I hadn't known
the details. Sorry to have misstated things, and
thanks for clarifying.
Not that it entirely negates my point,
though, because just imagine, if Noam Chomsky had
been defending someone accused of being a
Nazi camp guard, what sort of things Oliver
Kamm would say about him!
>Calling somebody a Nazi does not make them one.
Indeed. Which was precisely the
sort of thing Chomsky was pointing out,
and for which he has been so endlessly
slammed. In his case, I think it's clear
by now that Faurrisson is, well, if not
a Nazi, then at least a supporter of
Le Penn, but Chomsky obviously felt he
had to give the benefit of the doubt to
someone on trial for their views.
DG
jott...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Well, that's interesting. I hadn't known
> the details. Sorry to have misstated things, and
> thanks for clarifying.
> Not that it entirely negates my point,
> though, because just imagine, if Noam Chomsky had
> been defending someone accused of being a
> Nazi camp guard, what sort of things Oliver
> Kamm would say about him!
In point of fact the people who defended Linnas, Demjanjuk and others
accussed of war crimes by OSI did catch a lot of flak. Demjanjuk's defense
attorney in Israel, Yoram Sheftel had acid splashed in his face soon after he
agreed to agreed to take the case. Ramsey Clark is routinely attacked by
Zionist organizations that don't like his stands on the Middle East for his
principled defense (He represented Linnas at the deportation hearings) of the
civil rights of Karl Linnas. I think this is the real underlying reason for
the attacks on Chomsky as a defender of Nazis. The only defense of Israel's
crimes left is to call its critics anti-semites.
OSI's use of civil proceedures to expel naturalized citizens from the US to
countries that wanted to try them and execute them for political crimes was a
grotesque violation of civil rights. Evidence provided by the KGB, UDBA
(Yugoslav Secret Police), and other Eastern European intelligence services to
prove that the defendants lied on their immigration papers forty years ago
would never have been admitted in a criminal trial.
I am currently writing a book (my third) on the abuses of OSI in the Linnas,
Demjanjuk, and Artukovic trials. In all these cases the media created a
"consesus" that accusing somebody of being a Nazi collaborator was the same as
a criminal conviction. The presumption of innocence was totally neglected by
the press which portrayed stripping somebody of his citizenship for providing
incomplete information to immigration authorities forty years ago the same as
committing mass murder.
What ever one may think of Buchanan's or Clark's other positions their
opposition to the judicial persecution of naturalized citizens for political
reasons stands in contrast to such opportunists as D'Amato, Giulianni, and
other poliical hacks that pushed to deport Linnas to his death. Obviously,
there are more Jews than Estonians in NY. Therefore Linnas' civil rights and
life had to be sacraficed for these votes.
J. Otto Pohl
Nathan Folkert
> This is an extraordinarily damning letter. It makes it absolutely clear that
> the motivation for the Chomsky groupies really is to promote the cause of
> Nazis - and yes, Demjanjuk reallly did commit Nazi crimes.
I'm sorry, Mr. Kamm, but I'm afraid that your argument simply does not
make sense. You claim to be some kind of a liberal, and yet you don't
seem to be able to tell the difference between defense of someone's civil
rights and defense of someone's viewpoints.
In the case of Chomsky, you might possibly have a point. I don't know. I
don't know what Chomsky knew at the time when he wrote that Faurisson
seemed to be an "apolitical liberal". In that case, at least, you had
some shread of credibility.
Now it seems that you are claiming that to defend a person's civil rights
-- to defend them as a defense attorney or to represent them legally in a
court battle -- is somehow "promoting the cause of the Nazis". This was
not a letter about someone claiming that Demjanjuk or Linnas were
"apolitical liberals", but a letter about someone being physical
disfigured because he was Demjanjuk's defense attorney, and someone being
politically attacked because he represented Linnas in his legal
procedings. I don't know the full story of Demjanjuk and Linnas, but to
claim that these two cases are somehow supporting the Nazi cause, rather
than supporting the rule of law on which modern liberal societies are
founded -- the very rule of law, civil rights, and judicial procedings
which separate modern liberal democracies from such nations as Nazi
Germany and Stalinist Russia -- is truly "damning".
> The Jew-baiting conspiracy theories are all here. And they speak volumes
> about their author.
No, there is no evidence of "Jew-baiting conspiracy theories" in this
letter, though the conclusion drawn is perhaps a bit extreme given the
arguements that were made, though it was represented as an opinion rather
than an assertion. The evidence is that a number of people and
organizations attacked those who were attempting to uphold the civil
rights of criminals to ensure that legal procedings against them were
conducted fairly and in accordance with the legal rules attempting to
uphold justice and limit government and judicial power.
Your response, however, may speak volumes about your inability to separate
the civil rights and legal defenses of a criminal from their crime. Or,
it may instead speak volumes about your disrespect for the rule of law, if
you did comprehend the difference but just didn't care.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however. You may have been
drawing from information of which I don't have knowledge (as I said, I'm
not very familiar with Demjanjuk's or Linnas's legal procedings). I
cannot take this letter seriously until you have demonstrated evidence
that Ramsey Clark and Yoram Sheftel and others were somehow consciously
allied with the cause of the Nazis rather than upholding the civil rights
of their clients in accordance with the laws of the United States and
Israel. If you can provide this evidence, then I will reconsider the
stance of your opponent as possibly being supportive some anti-Semitic
conspiracy, and I will withdraw the statements about your character that I
have made above. If you cannot provide this evidence, however, then at
least please justify why you believe that civil rights of criminals don't
matter and perhaps give some outline of what your vision of a "liberal"
society is, since I'm very curious how you can reconcile these stances.
> Oliver Kamm
> jott...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <72t9u9$uc3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
> >>
> >> Well, that's interesting. I hadn't known
> >> the details. Sorry to have misstated things, and
> >> thanks for clarifying.
> >
> >
> >> Not that it entirely negates my point,
> >> though, because just imagine, if Noam Chomsky had
> >> been defending someone accused of being a
> >> Nazi camp guard, what sort of things Oliver
> >> Kamm would say about him!
> >
> >In point of fact the people who defended Linnas, Demjanjuk and others
> >accussed of war crimes by OSI did catch a lot of flak. Demjanjuk's defense
> >attorney in Israel, Yoram Sheftel had acid splashed in his face soon after
> he
> >agreed to agreed to take the case. Ramsey Clark is routinely attacked by
> >Zionist organizations that don't like his stands on the Middle East for his
> >principled defense (He represented Linnas at the deportation hearings) of
> the
> >civil rights of Karl Linnas. I think this is the real underlying reason for
> >the attacks on Chomsky as a defender of Nazis. The only defense of Israel's
> >crimes left is to call its critics anti-semites.
>
>
>
>
>
Nathan Folkert
nfol...@cs.stanford.edu
================================================
All for ourselves, and nothing for other people,
seems, in every age of the world, to have been
the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
================================================
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Oliver Kamm
the motivation for the Chomsky groupies really is to promote the cause of
Nazis - and yes, Demjanjuk reallly did commit Nazi crimes.
The Jew-baiting conspiracy theories are all here. And they speak volumes
about their author.
Oliver Kamm
jott...@my-dejanews.com
"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@virgin.net> wrote:
> This is an extraordinarily damning letter. It makes it absolutely clear that
> the motivation for the Chomsky groupies really is to promote the cause of
> Nazis - and yes, Demjanjuk reallly did commit Nazi crimes.
>
There is absolutely no evidence that Demjanjuk committed any crimes. He was
never a member of the NSDAP, in fact as a Ukrainian he was ineligible for
membership in the organization on the basis that he was racially an
"untermenschen". The charge that Demjanjuk was at Treblinka has been
recognized to have no basis by no less than the Supreme court of Israel. He
has not been charged with any other crimes. The 6th Circuit Apeals Court in
the US ruled that OSI committed "fraud upon the court" in denaturalizing and
extraditing Demjanjuk to Israel. The OSI deliberately suppressed exculpatory
evidence, suborned perjury from Otto Horn, and attempted to destroy evidence
of their misconduct. All of these actions are criminal offenses under US law.
Oliver Kamm
say that it is staggering to find such a blatant act of pro-Nazi apologetic
on a public list supposedly committed to a leftist point of view, but as
other participants have pointed out at length and with scholarship, the
affinity between the groupies of the bigoted, totalitarian "Left", such as
Chomsky, and the bigoted, totalitarian Right, like Mr Pohl is almost total.
There is OF COURSE indisputable evidence of Demjanjuk's crimes. The Israeli
Supreme Court, in a judgement of impeccable sagacity and commitment to the
rule of law, found that there was reasonable doubt that Demjanjuk was the
infamous "Ivan the Terrible", but no doubt that he participated in the
Holocaust. Documents before the court proved Demjanjuk served at Sobibor, at
the Flossenberg concentration camp, and at the SS training camp at Trawniki
for death camp guards.
I advise Mr Folkert to stop blaspheming on a subject on which, by his own
admission, he is ignorant. And I call on all subscribers to this list who
uphold the values of anti-racism and anti-fascism - and there appear to be
rather few of them - to condemn Mr Pohl's sickening pro-Nazi stand and his
indulgence in the crudest Jew-baiting conspiracy theories.
Oliver Kamm
jott...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<73orq9$nu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Nathan Folkert
> I have quoted Mr Pohl's letter in full, because it is so damning. I would
> say that it is staggering to find such a blatant act of pro-Nazi apologetic
> on a public list supposedly committed to a leftist point of view, but as
> other participants have pointed out at length and with scholarship, the
> affinity between the groupies of the bigoted, totalitarian "Left", such as
> Chomsky, and the bigoted, totalitarian Right, like Mr Pohl is almost total.
>
> There is OF COURSE indisputable evidence of Demjanjuk's crimes. The Israeli
> Supreme Court, in a judgement of impeccable sagacity and commitment to the
> rule of law, found that there was reasonable doubt that Demjanjuk was the
> infamous "Ivan the Terrible", but no doubt that he participated in the
> Holocaust. Documents before the court proved Demjanjuk served at Sobibor, at
> the Flossenberg concentration camp, and at the SS training camp at Trawniki
> for death camp guards.
>
> I advise Mr Folkert to stop blaspheming on a subject on which, by his own
> admission, he is ignorant.
You seem to have missed my point completely. Yes, I admitted ignorance on
the issue of Demjanjuk and Linnas. However, whether they are guilty or
innocent is beside the point in my argument -- that is understood when one
is discussing the rights of the accused in a society that has even minimal
legal protection.
You had stated that a letter which described attacks on the defense
attorneys and legal representatives or Demjanjuk and Linnas was somehow
supportive of the Nazi cause. I stated that this was ridiculous --
everyone who stands accused of a crime, no matter how heinous, has the
legal right in our country (and, I should hope, in Israel) to a fair trial
and representation by a lawyer. That is not Naziism, Mr. Kamm, but rather
a characteristic that was missing from Nazi society.
Moreover, if you consider my arguments to be blasphemous -- that I should
revile a person who seems to hold the civil rights of the accused in utter
contempt, relating it to Naziism of all things -- then I must only wonder
what arguments you must consider to be within your faith.
I hope I have explained myself more clearly this time, so you don't,
apparently, think that I am some kind of Demjanjuk and Linnas gadfly
making spurious claims about their criminality. Again, I will withdraw
all of my "blasphemy" once you show evidence that attacking the legal
representatives of Demjanjuk and Linnas was somehow in line with the
advancement of democracy and rule of law against the Nazi terror. If you
can't do so, then at least explain why you believe civil rights, or,
specifically, the rights of the accused, are not important, and, what
liberal causes you actually do uphold, if not the basic rights of
humankind.
If you think I've misunderstood your first letter, which might be
possible, though I don't see any other interpretation than an attack on
the rule of law, I will accept corrections or restatements.
> And I call on all subscribers to this list who
> uphold the values of anti-racism and anti-fascism - and there appear to be
> rather few of them - to condemn Mr Pohl's sickening pro-Nazi stand and his
> indulgence in the crudest Jew-baiting conspiracy theories.
I will not condemn Mr. Pohl's first letter, because I believe that it did
not demonstrate anything of the sort. As for his second letter, I am
again unfamiliar with the case of Demjanjuk and thus cannot make a
judgment on it. If either of you supplied any evidence, that would be
much appreciated. Otherwise I will look it up when I have the time and
make my condemnation or vindication later in the month.
Racism and fascism are two of the most detestable ideologies ever dreamed
up by twisted and evil men. They are enemies of reason and of human
rights. We have defeated them for the most part in large battles over
their ultimate goals, but it is here we see these ideologies winning
lesser goals by destroying reason and undermining support of fundamental
human rights.
Nathan Folkert
nfol...@cs.stanford.edu
http:://www.stanford.edu/~nfolkert
==========================================================================
No one can deny, in the face of the evidence, that it is easy, given
military power, to produce a population of fanatical lunatics. It would
be equally easy to produce a population of sane and reasonable people, but
many governments do not wish to do so, since such people would fail to
admire the politicians who are at the head of these governments.
==========================================================================
- Bertrand Russell
==========================================================================
David O'Bedlam
> There is OF COURSE indisputable evidence of Demjanjuk's crimes.
Strictly speaking, NOTHING is indisputable. Can you convey to me
in a Usenet post INDISPUTABLE evidence that you even exist?
As for Demjanjuk, the "documents" that you believe in so strongly
were shown to be forgeries. Furthermore -- however much I'd like
it to be so -- merely "serving at Sobibor" (*if* he in fact did)
does not prove he was THE "Ivan the Terrible." Besides, the crimes
that "THE Ivan the Terrible" may have committed were *relatively*
minor as he was bound to be a "nobody" in the Nazi hierarchy. It's
not like he was a Himmler or even a Mengele.
Whether Demjanjuk was "THE" Ivan the Terrible or not was, by the
1980s, largely irrevelant -- unless you want to track down ever
other "minor Nazi functionary" anywhere in the world (including
meter maids and train conductors) and give them medical care while
you exact your holy vengeance. Or have you forgotten that the Nazis
needed a functioning road and rail system in order to wreak their
terror? In fact Mr. Kamm the logical result of your thirst for
"justice" would be to lock up every surviving person who lived in
any area the Nazis had control over -- unless they were killed by
the Nazis at the time. Nobody who survived that time could be
TOTALLY without some kind of moral blemish, right? Even to cross
the steet when the little light said "WALK" (or whatever) shows
some *complicity* with the "ruling order", doesn't it? Which makes
every Central European who followed traffic laws from 1933-1945
a "NAZI MURDERER!" Doesn't it. Are you prepared to line them up
in their wheelchairs or on their canes and EXECUTE THEM ALL?
Besides, let's try to remember one thing: Demjanjuk was a sick
old man when he was tried. Prosecuting such a person seems more
like persecution than justice. I'd suggest you might headhunters
concentrate more on fixing the evils that are going on NOW --
and on preventing similar evils in the future -- instead.
TheDavid
--
"I can't gracefully accept the universe. But I've found I that
I *can* gracefully accept the fact that the universe should
not exist." -- Satanas Uxora, on alt.angst
David Graeber
<Pine.GSO.3.96.98112...@elaine14.Stanford.EDU>, Nathan
Folkert <nfol...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> > This is an extraordinarily damning letter. It makes it absolutely clear that
> > the motivation for the Chomsky groupies really is to promote the cause of
> > Nazis - and yes, Demjanjuk reallly did commit Nazi crimes.
>
> I'm sorry, Mr. Kamm, but I'm afraid that your argument simply does not
> make sense. You claim to be some kind of a liberal, and yet you don't
> seem to be able to tell the difference between defense of someone's civil
> rights and defense of someone's viewpoints.
He's a troll. We probably shouldn't be responding
to him at all. Especially since at this point his
claims are so outrageous they're self-refuting.
>
> In the case of Chomsky, you might possibly have a point. I don't know. I
> don't know what Chomsky knew at the time when he wrote that Faurisson
> seemed to be an "apolitical liberal". In that case, at least, you had
> some shread of credibility.
>
> Now it seems that you are claiming that to defend a person's civil rights
> -- to defend them as a defense attorney or to represent them legally in a
> court battle -- is somehow "promoting the cause of the Nazis". This was
> not a letter about someone claiming that Demjanjuk or Linnas were
> "apolitical liberals", but a letter about someone being physical
> disfigured because he was Demjanjuk's defense attorney, and someone being
> politically attacked because he represented Linnas in his legal
> procedings. I don't know the full story of Demjanjuk and Linnas, but to
> claim that these two cases are somehow supporting the Nazi cause, rather
> than supporting the rule of law on which modern liberal societies are
> founded -- the very rule of law, civil rights, and judicial procedings
> which separate modern liberal democracies from such nations as Nazi
> Germany and Stalinist Russia -- is truly "damning".
I wouldn't have responded to Kamm at all except there
seems to be a really disturbing pattern here. Faurrisson,
incidentally, had acid thrown in his face too, and this
is one reason I suspect Chomsky was inclined to bend over
backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt on his
political orientation. Demjanjuk's Israeli lawyer, I have been
told, also had acid thrown in his face. I find it really hard to
believe that even Kamm is defending this sort of thing. Is
he?
The whole idea of people throwing acid in other people's
faces just makes me sick to my stomach. You really have to
wonder what sort of person would do that to someone else.
So... well, maybe at least here we can have one thing that
everyone can agree on, for a change? Do we all agree that
throwing acid in someone's face is _always_ wrong? I mean,
I don't care if Faurrisson is a Nazi - which he quite
possibly is. Even Nazis should not have acid thrown in
their faces. No one should. Adolf Hitler should not have
acid thrown in his face. Shoot him? Sure. But no acid.
No one deserves that. Even people who go around throwing
acid in other people's faces should not have acid thrown
in theirs. It's just bad. No one should do that.
Hell, maybe we can even get Kamm to agree to that
one. Though I doubt it, because he has never to my
knowledge made a single post which wasn't a
virulent attack on someone, (almost?) always, someone
in some way connected to Chomsky. Since I know of
no examples of any Chomsky ally having splashed
acid in anyone else's face it seems unlikely he'd
bother to confirm.
DG
jott...@my-dejanews.com
Treblinka. The affidaivits of Ukrainian guards at the camp interrogated by
the Soviet NKVD and Smersh after the War make it clear that the gas chamber
operators at Treblinka were Ivan Marchenko (killed 2 August 1943) and Nikolai
Shulyev. Two of this affidaivits, Leleko and Malagon were provided by the
USSR to OSI before they began the denaturalization proceedings. OSI
deliberately supressed this information. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
decision ruling that OSI had committed "fraud upon the court" deals with this
issue in depth. I suggest Herr Kamm read it.
There is no evidence that would be admissible in a US criminal trial that
Demjanjuk was at Sobibor. The USSR supplied an "ID card" for the Trawinki
camp (By the way most people trained at Trawiniki guarded agricultural
estates, not death camps) which has several spelling errors in the German on
it. The man in charge of issuing ID cards at Trawniki, Heinrich Scheffer has
given a sworn affidaivit that he has never seen an ID card similar to the one
the Soviet government provided to OSI. Indeed no similar cards exist anywhere
in the archives of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Trawniki ID card
which is obviously not what it purports to be has a single hand written (in
violation SS protocal which required stamps) entry of service to Sobibor.
Originally the USSR wanted OSI to denatrualize Demjanjuk and deport him to the
USSR to be tried for crimes at Sobibor. The head of the Israeli Nazi Crimes
Investigation Unit, Radwiker, however convicned OSI to change the charge from
Sobibor to Treblinka. The reason Radwiker did this was that she could not find
a single living witness in Israel that was willing to place Demjanjuk at
Sobibor. Likewise OSI could find no such witnesses in the US and the USSR did
not offer any. The complete lack of even a single living witness claiming
Demjanjuk was at Sobibor makes Herr Kamm's libelous attacks upon Demjanjuk
extremely weak.
Why does Herr Kamm believe that an ID card with multiple misspellings
provided by the KGB is sufficient evidence to hang an American? Especially
when forensic experts such as Dr. Julius Grant have pronounced that the card
was indeed constructed after WWII. Would Herr Kamm have excepted evidence
provided by Boss (apartheid era South African Political police) against Black
South Africans nin the US charged with "terrorism" or "treason"?
Oliver Kamm
Nathan Folkert wrote in message ...
>I'm sorry, Mr. Kamm, but I'm afraid that your argument simply does not
>make sense. You claim to be some kind of a liberal, and yet you don't
>seem to be able to tell the difference between defense of someone's civil
>rights and defense of someone's viewpoints.
I am a man of inexhaustible patience as well as fair-mindedness, and I am
prepared to repeat he same point as long as Mr Folkert continues to agonise
over whether to condemn Nazis (real, specific, individual Nazis, not just
invocation of a ritual denunciation of Nazism) or expound a moral
agnosticism on the matter. I do urge him, though, to read - actually read -
the letters submitted by Mr Pohl. Mr Pohl's point is PRECISELY that the Nazi
war criminal John Demjanjuk is an unfairly maligned man.
Mr Folkert's time, if he wants to agonise over such points, would be better
spent speculating on why a list dedicated to Chomsky, and whose members
generally claim to be on the Left, actually attracts unabashed Nazi bigots
like Mr Pohl.
>In the case of Chomsky, you might possibly have a point
You can say that again. You might add the speculative hypothesis that Bill
Clinton is not an entirely faithful husband, or that Madonna is not
altogether shy of publicity.
Oliver Kamm
Dan Clore
> Nathan Folkert wrote in message ...
> I am a man of inexhaustible patience as well as fair-mindedness, and I am
> prepared to repeat he same point as long as Mr Folkert continues to agonise
> over whether to condemn Nazis (real, specific, individual Nazis, not just
> invocation of a ritual denunciation of Nazism) or expound a moral
> agnosticism on the matter. I do urge him, though, to read - actually read -
> the letters submitted by Mr Pohl. Mr Pohl's point is PRECISELY that the Nazi
> war criminal John Demjanjuk is an unfairly maligned man.
Look like Olly is trying pretty hard to beat Jimi in the looniest nitwit
race. Keep trying, Olly, you've still got a hell of a long way to go.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
jott...@my-dejanews.com
> >make sense. You claim to be some kind of a liberal, and yet you don't
> >seem to be able to tell the difference between defense of someone's civil
> >rights and defense of someone's viewpoints.
>
> prepared to repeat he same point as long as Mr Folkert continues to agonise
> over whether to condemn Nazis (real, specific, individual Nazis, not just
> invocation of a ritual denunciation of Nazism) or expound a moral
> agnosticism on the matter. I do urge him, though, to read - actually read -
> the letters submitted by Mr Pohl. Mr Pohl's point is PRECISELY that the Nazi
> war criminal John Demjanjuk is an unfairly maligned man.
>
John Demjanjuk is not a war criminal. What part of innocent until proven
guilty does Tovarishch Kamm not understand? The Sobibor evidence Kamm has
refferred to consists of one hand written entry on a fake ID card. What
legitimate ID cards have neither dates of issue or dates of expiration? I
know that if Tovarishch Kamm's British passport has both a date of issue and
a date of expiration. In fact all goverment issued identity documents
including those issued by the SS during WWII do. The Trawniki ID card is the
only alleged exception to this rule. The other evidence against Demjanjuk is
hearsay that would be inadmissible in a US criminal court. It is a written
protocal from Ignat Danilchenko a now dead Ukrainian. Protocals were written
statements taken by Soviet investigative agencies that purport to be records
of the interogatees confession. It is unclear whether Ignat Danilchenko ever
existed. There is no independent confirmation of his existence outside of the
protocal. There certainly is no evidence that the Soviets did not make up the
statement and then pre-dated it. The doubts surrounding the legitimacy of the
protocal would have made it inadmissible in a criminal court. Parker's
internal OSI memo regarding the ethical problems of the Demjanjuk
denaturalization makes the point that the Danilchenko protocal is legally
hearsay. The memo is reproduced in its entirety in the 1993 Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals decision wich concluded that OSI committed "fraud upon the
court" in the Demjanjuk denaturalization and extradition proceedings. Despite
scouring the world, neither OSI or the Israeli Nazi Crimes Investigation Unit
could find a single Sobibor survivor who could identify Demjanjuk.
The allegations of service at Flossenburg and Regensburg also come from the
Danilchenko protocal. Here there is not even any handwritten entries for
these camps (neither which were extermination camps) on the "Trawniki ID
card". Why does Tovarishch Kamm believe that confessions extracted by
Stalin's secret police (assuming the Danilchenko protocal is not an actual
forgery manufactured by the KGB especially for OSI) are sufficient evidence
to hang an American citizen? In criminal trials forced confessions are
inadmissible as evidence. This a primary reason why OSI used denaturalization
and deportation; they relied upon confessions and testimonies provided by the
USSR for most of their evidence. Had there been real war crimes trials in the
US there would have been absolutely zero convictions by OSI.
Nathan Folkert
>
> Nathan Folkert wrote in message ...
> >I'm sorry, Mr. Kamm, but I'm afraid that your argument simply does not
> >make sense. You claim to be some kind of a liberal, and yet you don't
> >seem to be able to tell the difference between defense of someone's civil
> >rights and defense of someone's viewpoints.
>
>
> I am a man of inexhaustible patience as well as fair-mindedness, and I am
> prepared to repeat he same point as long as Mr Folkert continues to agonise
> over whether to condemn Nazis (real, specific, individual Nazis, not just
> invocation of a ritual denunciation of Nazism) or expound a moral
> agnosticism on the matter.
I am not "expounding a moral agnosticism" on the matter of condemning
Nazis. You have again missed the point. Condemning Demjanjuk and Linnas
as Nazis is something that I'm more than willing to do when I have time to
look in to the matter, provided that there is justification for the
charges against them. I have stated that I am not in a position to judge
their guilt or innocence, as I have no knowledge about the evidence or
proceedings against them. I am not going to condemn two men for
subscribing to an ideology which I feel is the most damning and detestable
humankind has ever conceived without more information on the subject than
two people making assertions over newsgroups. It is not "moral
agnosticism" that prevents me from condemning these men.
Nonetheless, this is not the argument that I'm making. The argument that
I am making, and have been repeatedly making since the start, is that you
seemed to be stating that to decry attacks against legal representatives
and attorneys of Demjanjuk and Linnas is to promote the cause of the Nazis
and are somehow evidence of "Jew-baiting conspiracies". I thought that
this showed a remarkable contempt for the ideals of civil rights, rule of
law, and the rights of the accused.
The specific cases I gave were Ramsey Clark and Yoram Sheftel, who were
politically attacked and splashed with acid, respectively, by those who
apparently do not believe people *accused* of being Nazis have basic civil
rights to a fair trial. I asked you if these two people were Nazis, or
promoted the Nazi cause. I asked you if I could possibly have been
mistaken in my interpretation of your argument. The response for both
questions was absolutely nothing.
Instead you claimed I was blaspheming on a subject of which I know
nothing, which is untrue. I know that Sheftel and Clark have been
attacked for supporting the civil rights of these accused Nazis. I know
that the rule of law and strong civil rights separate us from totalitarian
monsters such as the Nazis. These are the two key issues in the point for
which I am arguing. Were I making some claims about the guilt or
innocence of Demjanjuk and Linnas, I would be blaspheming on a subject of
which I know nothing, but that is not my argument, a point which I thought
was abundantly clear. You are simply mistaking the argument that I am
making, that there is a clear separation between support for the rights of
the accused and support for the crimes for which they are accused, for
some other arguement which it clearly is not.
I have asked you twice if I was mistaken on your stance or if I was
overlooking knowledge, of which it would seem you possess but are not
presenting to me, that supporting the civil rights of Demjanjuk and Linnas
is somehow equivalent to promoting Nazism. I will accept credible
arguments for either, or explanations which I have not considered, and
withdraw my case, but you've said nothing on either, which makes me wonder
if my suspicions are correct -- that you are indeed condemning the idea of
civil rights and rights of the accused. I still await a response that
will allow me to discount this.
> I do urge him, though, to read - actually read -
> the letters submitted by Mr Pohl. Mr Pohl's point is PRECISELY that the Nazi
> war criminal John Demjanjuk is an unfairly maligned man.
I have been reading the letters Mr. Pohl has been posting. It does appear
that he claims Demjanjuk is, for the most part, an unfairly maligned man.
Yet I am still not in a position to debate this claim, as I still have not
had the time or energy to research the subject. If you want to shoot down
the points that he's been making, I would find such an exchange to be most
enlightening. Regardless, this still does not address MY posting.
> Mr Folkert's time, if he wants to agonise over such points, would be better
> spent speculating on why a list dedicated to Chomsky, and whose members
> generally claim to be on the Left, actually attracts unabashed Nazi bigots
> like Mr Pohl.
I am too busy currently speculating why a man claiming to be liberal is
making what appears to me to be an attack on the liberal ideals of civil
rights. Regardless, I am in no position to judge whether or not Mr. Pohl
is an unabashed Nazi bigot, and, in any case, every newsgroup on the
internet seems to attract such people from time to time.
[snip]
Nathan Folkert
nfol...@cs.stanford.edu
http://www.stanford.edu/~nfolkert
*********************************************************************
* Now the Queen she came to call on us, She wanted to see all of us *
* I'm glad she didn't fall on us; she's eighteen stone! *
* "Mister Melord the Mayor, is this all you've got to show me?" *
* "Why, no ma'am there's some more to see -- Pog mo thoin!" *
*********************************************************************
- Monto
Jon Duncan
>Look like Olly is trying pretty hard to beat Jimi in the looniest nitwit
>race. Keep trying, Olly, you've still got a hell of a long way to go.
He gained a lot of ground by calling _The Political Economy of Human Rights_
a "totalitarian manifesto"!
Jon
Oliver Kamm
Chomsky's allies' splashing acid in someone's face, but merely of their
slaughtering millions of innocent civilians in cold blood and with
unspeakable barbarity.
Oliver Kamm
David Graeber wrote in message ...
Since I know of
Oliver Kamm
judgement that opposition to Nazi war criminals is a fringe and unbalanced
political cause.
And, of course, if one starts from a position of bigotry and
totalitarianism, so it doubtless must seem. Those of us on this list who, by
contrast, subscribe to left-wing principles will draw our own conclusions
about Mr Clore's ideology and character.
Oliver Kamm
Dan Clore wrote in message <3664E9...@columbia-center.org>...
>Oliver Kamm wrote:
>> Nathan Folkert wrote in message ...
>
>> I am a man of inexhaustible patience as well as fair-mindedness, and I am
>> prepared to repeat he same point as long as Mr Folkert continues to
agonise
>> over whether to condemn Nazis (real, specific, individual Nazis, not just
>> invocation of a ritual denunciation of Nazism) or expound a moral
>> agnosticism on the matter. I do urge him, though, to read - actually
read -
>> the letters submitted by Mr Pohl. Mr Pohl's point is PRECISELY that the
Nazi
>> war criminal John Demjanjuk is an unfairly maligned man.
>
>Look like Olly is trying pretty hard to beat Jimi in the looniest nitwit
>race. Keep trying, Olly, you've still got a hell of a long way to go.
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
>
> Mr Clore is being uncharacteristically honest here in expressing his
> judgement that opposition to Nazi war criminals is a fringe and unbalanced
> political cause.
>
> And, of course, if one starts from a position of bigotry and
> totalitarianism, so it doubtless must seem. Those of us on this list who, by
> contrast, subscribe to left-wing principles will draw our own conclusions
> about Mr Clore's ideology and character.
Keep trying and you'll make it yet, Olly! You're starting to lapse back
into your pull-string doll from the Island of Misfit Toys, though, so do
keep producing new material for us.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
Jon Duncan
Oliver Kamm wrote in message
<744fjj$5r4$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>Mr Clore is being uncharacteristically honest here in expressing his
>judgement that opposition to Nazi war criminals is a fringe and unbalanced
>political cause.
>
>And, of course, if one starts from a position of bigotry and
>totalitarianism, so it doubtless must seem. Those of us on this list who,
by
>contrast, subscribe to left-wing principles will draw our own conclusions
>about Mr Clore's ideology and character.
>
>
The vast majority of the people on this "list" are both left-wing and think
Noam Chomsky is a terrific individual. Obviously, the latter does not apply
to you. I'm still waiting for evidence of the former.
Jon