Peerless In Shite: The Not-So-Hidden Inanities of Werner Cohn
cl...@columbia-center.org
by Dan Clore
Werner Cohn (mailto:wern...@worldnet.att.net</A>'s little
booklet on Noam Chomsky, which first appeared in 1988 as
The Hidden Alliances of Noam Chomsky and was re-published
in 1995 "with only minor changes" as Partners in Hate, has
become a classic of its genre.
Partners in Hate:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/cohn.werner/partners-in-hate
Filled with bilious rhetoric, non sequiturs, and irrelevant padding,
this attempt to demonstrate that Noam Chomsky has been leading
a double life as a neo-Nazi in Paris could not help but become a
favorite of such Cliff Clavens of UseNet as James A. Donald
(jam...@echeque.com), Charles Kalina (cka...@capaccess.org),
and Hunter Watson (hwa...@portup.com). The latter, for example,
tells us in <hwatson-1108...@portup404.portup.com> that:
"Cohn devastates him. The book has the ring of truth from begining
to end."
And in <hwatson-ya0231800...@news.up.net>
Watson further informs us:
"Those of us who have focused objectively on Werner's war with
Chomsky, for example, have little doubt that he won it.
He did it in a thoroughly fair minded and well documented fashion."
Here I look at just one of the major claims that Werner Cohn makes
against Chomsky -- what I consider the gravest and most serious
claim -- to discover just how accurately he has represented the facts.
Cohn alleges that Herman and Chomsky's Political Economy of
Human Rights was published by a tiny French neo-Nazi press
named La Vieille Taupe ("the old mole" -- hereafter
abbreviated to VT), rather than by a reputable commercial publisher.
This is the charge that I will subject to scrutiny.
Cohn tells us in the preface:
"He [Chomsky] went out of his way to have his books published
by French neo-Nazis."
And again asserts, in his conclusion:
".... we found Chomsky publishing his own books with neo-Nazi
publishers ...."
In the main text of his booklet, Cohn makes clear the precise nature
of this charge, allegedly paraphrasing Pierre Guillaume of VT:
"At a time when the VT movement suffered from ostracism from
all sides, when, moreover, Chomsky could have published a French
version of his Political Economy of Human Rights (written with
Edward Herman) with a French commercial firm, Chomsky
nevertheless stood by his friends of the VT and published his
book with them."
And again:
"Guillaume has told us .... how he [Chomsky] had sacrificed
self-interest to political principle by publishing his book with
VT rather than commercially ...."
And yet again:
"Not only did Chomsky publish his Political Economy of
Human Rights with Guillaume's organization. He also ...."
I leave aside as irrelevant the issue of whether Cohn has accurately
rendered Guillaume's claims, and on that score I only note that he
provides no quotations to support his assertion regarding
Guillaume's statements (I will make some comments on this matter
later in regard to his reliance on Guillaume as his "crucial source").
Werner Cohn has decided to put forward this allegation as the
truth, and he has the responsibility to make sure that such claims,
even when he merely repeats them from another source, are accurate.
So, the fact at issue: Did Chomsky publish The Political Economy
of Human Rights with La Vieille Taupe instead of a commercial
publisher?
The answer is:
No.
The French translation of The Political Economy of Human Rights
appeared as L'Economie politique des droits de l'homme in 1981,
and was published by Albin-Michel, a mainstream, commercial
publisher.
When confronted with this fact, Werner Cohn attempted to squirm
out of his earlier claim as follows (from James A. Donald's UseNet
message <65fm06$5cs$2...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, quoted by Donald
from private e-mail with Cohn's permission):
"Yes, I think it was Albin-Michel. But it was a 'collection' with
Guillaume's name on it.
"In Guillaume's famous article (quoted and referenced in my booklet
[note: Cohn presents no such quotation in his booklet -- DC]) he,
Guillaume, boasts of his collaboration with Chomsky, and explains
how he and VT were greatful to Chomsky for publishing with them.
"The truth is that LaVieille [sic] Taupe had a number of publication
outlets, not always under its own name. But the leader of VT,
Guillaume, used his own name as editor for one of Chomsky's books
under some imprint other than VT. So in one sense one might say
that this particular book was not published by VT under its own name."
So now Albin-Michel has become a mere "imprint" of the tiny
fascist publisher VT. This assertion can easily be put to the test:
simply go to the On-Line French Books in Print:
http://www.alapage.tm.fr/
and put "Albin-Michel" in the "Editeur / Publisher" slot.
Results that I have gotten have ranged from 6,900 to 7,500 or more
books in print from this tiny fascist press. Scrolling through them
at random, I find a number of other authors that Werner Cohn
might also like to examine for their "hidden alliances" with
French neo-Nazis:
Maggie Thatcher
Carl Jung
The Dalai Lama
Tom Clancy
Stephen King
Doris Lessing
James Herbert
Poppy Z. Brite
Clive Barker
Robin Cook
John Fowles
Dean Koontz
Whitley Strieber
It will be seen that this neo-Nazi conspiracy is somewhat larger than
at first appeared.
The whole affair takes on an additional surrealistic quality when we
consider how Cohn characterizes Faurisson's work:
"Faurisson is a practitioner of what might be called the Method of
Crucial Source, a favorite among cranks. The Method consists in
seizing upon a phrase or sentence or sometimes a longer passage
from no matter where, without regard to its provenance or reliability,
to 'prove' a whole novel theory of history or the universe."
Werner Cohn followed exactly this same procedure for the claim
that we have just examined -- and at that, his "crucial source"
(whatever it might really have said) was one of the self-same
neo-Nazis that Cohn is denouncing for their dishonesty!
Can Cohn possibly expect us to take this stuff seriously?
----------------------------------------
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
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....
"Hziulquoigmnzhah" (hziulquo...@cykranosh.com) wrote:
> Iqhui dlosh odhqlonqh!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
cka...@capaccess.org
is one of the weaker critical essays of Chomsky. It's strongly polemical and
makes some elementary errors. These errors allow people like Mr. Clore to
ignore the very real and damaging facts of Chomsky and l'affaire Faurisson.
If Mr. Clore wishes to discuss Chomsky and l'affaire Faurisson, fine. If
he wants to nail Cohn for some of those elementary errors, I can hardly tell
him not to. If he means to discredit the serious accusations against Chomsky
simply because Cohn makes them badly, well, that's another matter.
In article <6rh0lu$ga$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> Here I look at just one of the major claims that Werner Cohn makes
> against Chomsky -- what I consider the gravest and most serious
> claim -- to discover just how accurately he has represented the facts.
> Cohn alleges that Herman and Chomsky's Political Economy of
> Human Rights was published by a tiny French neo-Nazi press
> named La Vieille Taupe ("the old mole" -- hereafter
> abbreviated to VT), rather than by a reputable commercial publisher.
> This is the charge that I will subject to scrutiny.
As your own quotes indicate, Cohn does not say that _PEHR_ was published by
VT:
> Cohn tells us in the preface:
> "He [Chomsky] went out of his way to have his books published
> by French neo-Nazis."
> And again asserts, in his conclusion:
> ".... we found Chomsky publishing his own books with neo-Nazi
> publishers ...."
Unfortunately this is one of those elementary errors I talked about -- an
occasion when Cohn's polemical tone weakens his argument. However, there is
a sound point to be made concerning Chomsky's relationship to LaVT.
We can be quite certain that Chomsky had a working relationship with Pierre
Guillaume during the early 1980s, and that part of this relationship involved
editing and publishing Chomsky's books in France . There are three pieces of
evidence that support this conclusion:
1. The French edition of PEHR was published as part of a series titled
"The Pit and the Pendulum", along with _Khmers Rouge!_ by Ben Kiernan and
Serge Thion. The editors' notes for this series were written by Guillaume,
so we can infer that he played some significant role in their publication.
2. Chomsky's book _Reponses Inedites_ was published by a Marxist
publisher, "Amis des Spartacus". Guillaume apparently arranged this as well;
the editor's notes are initialled "P.G.", and describe Chomsky's role in
preparing the book for publication. (To my knowledge this book has not been
published in English.)
3. In Guillaume's book _Droit et Histoire_, he devotes a chapter to
Chomsky's role in the Faurisson affair. At the end, he claims that Chomsky
had the opportunity to review the chapter, to correct errors, and to insert a
postscript prior to publication. Chomsky has never disavowed this text, even
when specifically attacked for it, so I assume it's genuine.
Guillaume was the head of LaVT, and is principally responsible for its
embrace of the Holocaust denial movement and particularly of Faurisson. So
Mr. Clore is correct when he says that LaVT didn't publish _PEHR_; but it
remains true that LaVT played some significant role in the publication of
both PEHR and _Reponses Inedites_.
[...]
> The whole affair takes on an additional surrealistic quality when we
> consider how Cohn characterizes Faurisson's work:
> "Faurisson is a practitioner of what might be called the Method of
> Crucial Source, a favorite among cranks. The Method consists in
> seizing upon a phrase or sentence or sometimes a longer passage
> from no matter where, without regard to its provenance or reliability,
> to 'prove' a whole novel theory of history or the universe."
> Werner Cohn followed exactly this same procedure for the claim
> that we have just examined -- and at that, his "crucial source"
> (whatever it might really have said) was one of the self-same
> neo-Nazis that Cohn is denouncing for their dishonesty!
> Can Cohn possibly expect us to take this stuff seriously?
If you want to examine the internal workings of the neo-Nazi movement, you
have to talk to neo-Nazis. Obviously you don't take everything they say at
face value, but you can form judgments about what is true and what isn't.
Guillaume's comments about Chomsky aren't much different from what Chomsky
himself says about the affair. For the most part, Guillaume merely provides
details -- for instance, the sequence of events in late 1980 by which
Chomsky's "Quelques Commentaires" became the preface to Faurisson's _Droit et
Histoire_.
But let's suppose that Guillaume was taking Chomsky's name in vain. You'd
think Chomsky would be rather upset. He wrote countless angry letters and
essays, and even published a book (_Reponses Inedites_), in reply to his
critics. You'd think he could direct some of that ire at Guillaume,
Faurisson, et al.
Not _once_ has he publicly rebuked the Holocaust denial movement for using
his name to advance their cause. Not Guillaume, not Faurisson, not the
Journal of Historical Review. Not even when his critics specifically
attacked him for allowing his name to be used in this fashion. At most, he
denied knowing that his name had been so used.
Nor has he ever described the Holocaust denial movement in a way that might
disparage its credibility. He has made perfunctory mention that he doesn't
agree with them, but he has also described them in terms usually used for
legitimate scholarship. And he let stand Guillaume's interpretation (in
_Droit et Histoire_) that he thinks it _is_ legitimate scholarship.
He's also made comments that hint at a close working relationship with
Guillaume and LaVT. For instance, in Barsky's recent biography, Chomsky
refers to opinions that Faurisson expressed in unpublished letters. How does
Chomsky have access to Faurisson's private correspondence? He doesn't say
(and Barsky, as usual, doesn't ask), but it suggests that he was rather more
involved in LaVT than he's admitted.
Chomsky himself, based on much less evidence than this, has accused people
of being fascists, crypto-Stalinists, and even Nazi sypmathizers. Apparently
he expects consideration that he does not grant to others.
(As an aside: Guillame isn't really a neo-Nazi. He started out in council
communism. He wandered into Holocaust denial because he couldn't square the
Holocaust with Marxist doctrine. Neo-Nazis deny the Holocaust to make Nazism
look good; Guillaume, apparently, just can't accept that there could be
anything more horrible than capitalism.)
Chris Faatz
conclusions in his book. Reading the back cover is almost enough to draw
the correct conclusion about the book: "When Noam Chomsky came to the
defense of the French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson, he astonished
friends and enemies alike. Chomsky has vigorously defended his acction as
being noting more than the protection of an individual's civil liberties,
quite unconnected with that individual's views and writings. Werner Cohn,
in this meticulously documented study, shows that Chomsky's defense of
Faurisson is much more than that, and indeed, that it is connected to some
of Chomsky's deepest political orientations, *in particular his unwavering
animus toward the United States and Israel.* In doing so, he sheds
surprising light on Chomsky's politics." [my emphasis]
This is a blurb by Nathan Glazer, a reknowned neo-conservative
intellectual and an unquestioning supporter of the Israeli state. As the
emphasized segment implies, the whole gist of the thing is to argue that
Chomsky is, in effect, an anti-semite due to his opposition to Zionism.
The Faurisson debacle was, as far as this bookseller of fifteen years and
maniacal first amendment absolutist can tell from all available evidence,
exactly as Chomsky put it: a defense of the right to publish one's
thoughts. Well in the tradition of Voltaire and the Western liberalism
(in the broad sense) that Werner--and Hunter--are so unabashedly proud of.
A few more quotes, just from the first couple pages:
"I have tried to find references in the NYT to Chomsky's neo-Nazi
involvements and could find only two items, out of the over one hundred
deveoted tohim, that allude to this side of his activities. The story is
quite different in France where Le Monde and other publications regularly
refer to Chomsky's relationship to the French neo-Nazi propaganist Robert
Faurisson." Citations are nonexistent in this "meticulously documented
study" to prove the above assertions.
Again, from the intro:
"The [Holocaust denying) Institute for Historical Review's publishing and
bookselling arm is called Noontide Press. Holocaust-denying is only one
part of the antisemitic menu of this supermarket of Nazism. The latest NP
catalog is dated 1995. Among its offerings we find Nazi-made mvies that
are banned in Germany because of their brazen propaganda, as well as the
notorious _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, books by Adolf Hitler and
Joseph Goebbels, a book by the late Father Coughlin, and the infamous _The
International Jew_ by Henry Ford. Chomsky is represented by five different
items.... Chomsky, according to the IHR, 'enlightens as no other writer on
Israel, Zionism, and American complicity."
IHR, at least up until a recent split and family feud, was owned by Willis
Carto, publisher of the Spotlight, the US' largest circulation
anti-semitic/fascist-oriented newspaper. However, despite all this,
Chomsky's inclusion in NP's catalog *does not* tie Chomsky in any way to
an anti-semitic conspiracy or the neo-Nazi movement in general. It's
tantamount to saying that because James P. Cannon said, at his trial for
conspiracy, that he'd read _Mein Kampf_, ergo, he was a fascist. This is
guilt by association, mud-smearing, about as loathsome a practice one can
find.
Hunter and Werner, I respect both of you, but I condemn this kind of
behavior from the bottom of my heart. Werner, I understand your love of
Israel and passionate Zionism, but to use innuendo to smear a prominent
anti-Zionist is beneath you. You may be opposed to anti-Zionism, but
I implore you to use the tools of reason rather than blacklisting to
put forward your positions.
Hunter, your misplaced patriotism, as reflected in your support of the
CIA, a *truly* criminal organization, etc., doesn't hide the fact that
your positions arise out of a horror for a mass politics that demolishes
the individual and his/her rights and being, and that you believe that the
US is the best defense of this in the world's history. However, the very
rule of law that you uphold so virogously is tarnished mightily by your
enthusiastic support of stuff like this (or of the School for the
Americas, or the CIA, etc., etc.)
How can you support this stuff? I just don't get it. I'm not a Chomsky
fan--I find his stuff indigestible--but this is thoroughly beyond the pale
and thoroughly mystifying.
On the other hand, this gentleman's assertion:
: "Hziulquoigmnzhah" (hziulquo...@cykranosh.com) wrote:
: > Iqhui dlosh odhqlonqh!
I support wholeheartedly, and it's my ardent belieft that Lovecraft has
had the last word in this discussion.
C
Miguel Baraona
>
> Chomsky himself, based on much less evidence than this, has accused people
>of being fascists, crypto-Stalinists, and even Nazi sypmathizers. Apparently
>he expects consideration that he does not grant to others.
Well, my friend, you must understand that there is quite a difference between
characterizing someone's 'ideology' as being akin to nazi or stalinist ideology,
than to say that such person may actually be 'involved' in a Nazi or Stalinist
organization, movement, or set of practical political activities.
Miguel Baraona
cl...@columbia-center.org
cka...@capaccess.org wrote:
> In article <6rh0lu$ga$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> > Here I look at just one of the major claims that Werner Cohn makes
> > against Chomsky -- what I consider the gravest and most serious
> > claim -- to discover just how accurately he has represented the facts.
> > Cohn alleges that Herman and Chomsky's Political Economy of
> > Human Rights was published by a tiny French neo-Nazi press
> > named La Vieille Taupe ("the old mole" -- hereafter
> > abbreviated to VT), rather than by a reputable commercial publisher.
> > This is the charge that I will subject to scrutiny.
>
> As your own quotes indicate, Cohn does not say that _PEHR_ was published by
> VT:
Oh no?
> > Cohn tells us in the preface:
> > "He [Chomsky] went out of his way to have his books published
> > by French neo-Nazis."
The "French neo-Nazis" in question being VT.
> > And again asserts, in his conclusion:
> > ".... we found Chomsky publishing his own books with neo-Nazi
> > publishers ...."
The "neo-Nazi publishers" in question being VT.
And here's what Kalina snipped:
In the main text of his booklet, Cohn makes clear the precise nature
of this charge, allegedly paraphrasing Pierre Guillaume of VT:
"At a time when the VT movement suffered from ostracism from
all sides, when, moreover, Chomsky could have published a French
version of his Political Economy of Human Rights (written with
Edward Herman) with a French commercial firm, Chomsky
nevertheless stood by his friends of the VT and published his
book with them."
[plain as day -- Cohn claims that Chomsky published PEHR with VT]
And again:
"Guillaume has told us .... how he [Chomsky] had sacrificed
self-interest to political principle by publishing his book with
VT rather than commercially ...."
[plain as day again]
And yet again:
"Not only did Chomsky publish his Political Economy of
Human Rights with Guillaume's organization. He also ...."
[plain as day yet again]
--
Not to mention these further squirms:
"Yes, I think it was Albin-Michel. But it was a 'collection' with
Guillaume's name on it.
"In Guillaume's famous article (quoted and referenced in my booklet
[note: Cohn presents no such quotation in his booklet -- DC]) he,
Guillaume, boasts of his collaboration with Chomsky, and explains
how he and VT were greatful to Chomsky for publishing with them.
"The truth is that LaVieille [sic] Taupe had a number of publication
outlets, not always under its own name. But the leader of VT,
Guillaume, used his own name as editor for one of Chomsky's books
under some imprint other than VT. So in one sense one might say
that this particular book was not published by VT under its own name."
--
So Cohn did unambiguously claim that VT published PEHR, and then
tried to squirm out of this by claiming that Albin-Michel, a mainstream
commercial publisher, was merely an imprint of VT.
> Unfortunately this is one of those elementary errors I talked about -- an
> occasion when Cohn's polemical tone weakens his argument. However, there is
> a sound point to be made concerning Chomsky's relationship to LaVT.
We shall see.
> We can be quite certain that Chomsky had a working relationship with Pierre
> Guillaume during the early 1980s, and that part of this relationship involved
> editing and publishing Chomsky's books in France . There are three pieces of
> evidence that support this conclusion:
>
> 1. The French edition of PEHR was published as part of a series titled
> "The Pit and the Pendulum", along with _Khmers Rouge!_ by Ben Kiernan and
> Serge Thion. The editors' notes for this series were written by Guillaume,
> so we can infer that he played some significant role in their publication.
This is by far the strongest piece of evidence here. It doesn't support your
case. Chomsky allows his publishers to handle the foreign editions of his
books; he doesn't deal with the foreign publishers directly. Assuming the
truth of the claim, this would only prove that a mainstream, commercial
French publisher had Guillaume edit some of their books. Given the
characterization of Guillaume, this seems like a remarkable claim. Having
chased down the smoking gun this far, and found nothing but a water pistol,
I don't see much reason to bother with any other claims on the matter.
[snip of other allegations repeated from Cohn]
> Chomsky himself, based on much less evidence than this, has accused people
> of being fascists, crypto-Stalinists, and even Nazi sypmathizers. Apparently
> he expects consideration that he does not grant to others.
More unsubstantiated tripe.
> (As an aside: Guillame isn't really a neo-Nazi. He started out in council
> communism. He wandered into Holocaust denial because he couldn't square the
> Holocaust with Marxist doctrine. Neo-Nazis deny the Holocaust to make Nazism
> look good; Guillaume, apparently, just can't accept that there could be
> anything more horrible than capitalism.)
I suspected that Cohn was lying about that as well, though your explanation --
that the Holocaust somehow contradicts Marxist doctrine -- makes no sense
at all to me.
I only have one question for Kalina: in a case like this, where Cohn is
provably lying in order to smear Chomsky, you claim that he just makes
"elementary errors", but when Chomsky makes statements of fact that you agree
are correct, then he is "lying" (because he really meant something else). Why
this grotesque double standard?
----------------------------------------
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
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....
"Hziulquoigmnzhah" (hziulquo...@cykranosh.com) wrote:
> Iqhui dlosh odhqlonqh!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
David Graeber
>disparage its credibility. He has made perfunctory mention that he doesn't
>agree with them, but he has also described them in terms usually used for
>legitimate scholarship. And he let stand Guillaume's interpretation (in
>_Droit et Histoire_) that he thinks it _is_ legitimate scholarship.
All you have to do is watch Manufacturing
Consent and you can see Chomsky state that he believes
that anyone who denies the holocaust by doing so
loses their own soul.
It seems to me the most elementary
principle of intellectual integrity that, if one
wishes to know someone's opinion on a question
like this, one asks them. This has been done
a thousand times with Chomsky and always he
says the same thing: he believes supporting
freedom of speech means first and foremost
supporting freedom to say the things one hates
and that's what he's doing with the
holocaust deniers. Now, maybe you think all
his public statements are an elaborate lie
but if that's your position, then you
could state it outright. Trying to imply
Chomsky has been lukewarm in his acknowledgement
of the holocaust demonstrates that you are either
so completely uninformed on this issue that
there's no reason to take anything you say
seriously, or else, that it is you yourself
who are being consciously deceitful.
DG
David Rolfe Graeber
> In article <6rhh1n$hid$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <cka...@capaccess.org> wrote:
> >
> >disparage its credibility. He has made perfunctory mention that he doesn't
> >agree with them, but he has also described them in terms usually used for
> >legitimate scholarship. And he let stand Guillaume's interpretation (in
> >_Droit et Histoire_) that he thinks it _is_ legitimate scholarship.
>
> Consent and you can see Chomsky state that he believes
> that anyone who denies the holocaust by doing so
> loses their own soul.
Oh, actually, it wasn't "soul" but "humanity";
a minor difference really. Here are the relevent CHomsky
quotes, which for some reason I actually just went
and transcribed off the video, all in relation to
Faurisson:
"Goebbels was in favor of freedom for
speach he liked. Stalin was in favor of freedom for
speech he liked. If you are in favor of
freedom of speech that means you are in favor
of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.
Otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech."
"With regard to my defense of people who express
utterly offensive views - I don't have the slightest
doubt that every commissar says "you're defending
that person's views." No, I'm not. I'm defending his
right to express them. The difference is crucial, and
the difference has been understood, outside of
fascist circles, since the 18th century."
"Going back years, I am absolutely certain that
I've taken far more extreme positions on people who deny
the holocaust than you have. For instance you go back
to my earliest articles and you find that I say 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."
"If anyone wants to refute Faurrisson
there's certainly no difficulty in doing so."
"It is a poor service to the memory of the
victims of the holocaust to adopt a central
doctrine of their murderers."
All quotes from Chomsky. On the video you
can actually see him say all of them (except for
the last, which was printed on the screen.)
DG
cka...@capaccess.org
Chris Faatz <cfa...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
> This is a blurb by Nathan Glazer, a reknowned neo-conservative
> intellectual and an unquestioning supporter of the Israeli state. As the
> emphasized segment implies, the whole gist of the thing is to argue that
> Chomsky is, in effect, an anti-semite due to his opposition to Zionism.
Well, no. The gist is that Chomsky is an anti-semite because he went to
some effort to legitimate, and excuse an anti-Semitic movement (Holocaust
denial) and one of its leading figures (Faurisson). Their shared opposition
to Israel happens to be the topic on which this shared anti-Semitism finds
expression.
Personally I do not agree with Cohn's thesis. As I've already said, I
think his essay makes a good point badly. However, Chomsky has made equally
serious accusations against others, based on far less evidence (to include
his accusations against Faurisson's critics). So it is, if not a fair
accusation, then at least fair play.
> The Faurisson debacle was, as far as this bookseller of fifteen years and
> maniacal first amendment absolutist can tell from all available evidence,
> exactly as Chomsky put it: a defense of the right to publish one's
> thoughts. Well in the tradition of Voltaire and the Western liberalism
> (in the broad sense) that Werner--and Hunter--are so unabashedly proud of.
Well, that is how Chomsky would like us to see it -- for obvious reasons.
It makes his actions look thoughtful and humane. It makes his critics look
like censors and enemies of freedom.
Unfortunately (for Chomsky), the facts are somewhat different. Many (I
think most) of his critics actually agreed with him on the free-speech
question. They took issue with Chomsky's comments that defended, not just
Faurisson's right to speak and publish, but Faurisson and his views _per se_.
Chomsky described Faurisson as a "respected professor" doing "extensive
independent research" on the Holocaust. He described Faurisson as an
"apolitical liberal" and insisted that there was nothing anti-Semitic or
pro-Nazi about denying the Holocaust. He also falsified the depth of
Faurisson's plight.
Whenever anyone faulted him for doing so, he insisted that he was merely
defending Faurisson's free speech -- and so his critics must be
crypto-Stalinists, bent on suppressing free speech. Of course, they could
hardly call for censorship openly, so when they said they agreed with Chomsky
on the free-speech question, that was just propaganda, n'est-ce pas?
(An aside: this is an example of the phenomenon I noted in response to Mr.
Clore. Chomsky and his defenders use a system of argument in which they are
allowed to divine supposedly-hidden meanings in targeted texts -- yet his
critics are obliged to concentrate on certain exculpatory phrases and to
ignore the substance of his argument, which often contradicts those phrases.)
[...]
> IHR, at least up until a recent split and family feud, was owned by Willis
> Carto, publisher of the Spotlight, the US' largest circulation
> anti-semitic/fascist-oriented newspaper. However, despite all this,
> Chomsky's inclusion in NP's catalog *does not* tie Chomsky in any way to
> an anti-semitic conspiracy or the neo-Nazi movement in general. It's
> tantamount to saying that because James P. Cannon said, at his trial for
> conspiracy, that he'd read _Mein Kampf_, ergo, he was a fascist. This is
> guilt by association, mud-smearing, about as loathsome a practice one can
> find.
It's not quite the same thing. It depends whether Chomsky has the power to
stop them from marketing his books and lectures. If he doesn't, then you're
correct -- we can hardly hold him responsible for things he does not
control.
However, if he _does_ have the power to stop them from using his name,
that's very different. In that case he has a responsibility to do so. If he
doesn't, we may take it as tacit acceptance of their claim that his views are
a reflection of their own. This is not guilt-by-association; it is simply
noting the obvious implications of a choice he has made, the choice not to
dissociate himself from a group with whom he is not obliged to associate.
Frankly, I do not know which is true -- I don't know whether he has the
ability to stop them from marketing his materials. But he certainly has the
ability to denounce the Holocaust denial movement (the IHR and others) for
using his name in this fashion. Yet he has _never_ done so -- and in fact
he maintained a working relationship with one such organization, Guillaume's
group in France, for at least five years.
Considering the volumes of paper he devoted to attacking Faurisson's
critics, you'd think he could have shown a little discomfort at the way
Holocaust deniers use his name. Unless of course he doesn't really mind them
using his name in this fashion.
[...]
> How can you support this stuff? I just don't get it. I'm not a Chomsky
> fan--I find his stuff indigestible--but this is thoroughly beyond the pale
> and thoroughly mystifying.
Again, I don't think Cohn's critique is a very strong one -- mostly
because it displays many of the faults of Chomsky's own work. But that's
partly the point: by Chomsky's own standards, it's fair criticism. Sauce
for the goose...
Chris Faatz
: All you have to do is watch Manufacturing
: Consent and you can see Chomsky state that he believes
: that anyone who denies the holocaust by doing so
: loses their own soul.
: wishes to know someone's opinion on a question
: like this, one asks them. This has been done
: a thousand times with Chomsky and always he
: says the same thing: he believes supporting
: freedom of speech means first and foremost
: supporting freedom to say the things one hates
: and that's what he's doing with the
: holocaust deniers.
Amen, and well said!
: Now, maybe you think all
: his public statements are an elaborate lie
: but if that's your position, then you
: could state it outright. Trying to imply
: Chomsky has been lukewarm in his acknowledgement
: of the holocaust demonstrates that you are either
: so completely uninformed on this issue that
: there's no reason to take anything you say
: seriously, or else, that it is you yourself
: who are being consciously deceitful.
Or, that one's seriously conspiracy-minded.
C
cka...@capaccess.org
cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> In article <6rhh1n$hid$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> cka...@capaccess.org wrote:
> > As your own quotes indicate, Cohn does not say that _PEHR_ was
> > published by
> > VT:
> Oh no?
When Cohn says "published by French neo-Nazis", or "publishing his own
books with neo-Nazi publishers", he may be describing the role that Guillaume
played in their publication. In none of your quotes does Cohn say,
precisely, "published by LaVT."
Granted, this is a stretch. It's precisely the sort of dishonest wordplay
that Chomsky's defenders have to use. I don't accept it from them, and I
don't intend to offer it on Cohn's behalf. As I've already said: I don't
think Cohn's essay is a particularly good one, and I don't intend to be drawn
into a defense of it.
However, the fact remains that Chomsky evidently had a working relationship
with Guillaume and LaVT that goes beyond a simple civil-libertarian defense
of Faurisson's free speech.
[...]
> > 1. The French edition of PEHR was published as part of a series titled
> > "The Pit and the Pendulum", along with _Khmers Rouge!_ by Ben Kiernan > > and
> > Serge Thion. The editors' notes for this series were written by Guillaume,
> > so we can infer that he played some significant role in their publication.
> This is by far the strongest piece of evidence here. It doesn't support your
> case. Chomsky allows his publishers to handle the foreign editions of his
> books; he doesn't deal with the foreign publishers directly. Assuming the
> truth of the claim, this would only prove that a mainstream, commercial
> French publisher had Guillaume edit some of their books. Given the
> characterization of Guillaume, this seems like a remarkable claim. Having
> chased down the smoking gun this far, and found nothing but a water pistol,
> I don't see much reason to bother with any other claims on the matter.
Well. Unlike you, I don't have an intimate knowledge of how Chomsky deals
with foreign publishers. I have to make judgments based on the available
evidence.
Guillaume was already linked to Chomsky via Faurisson and LaVT. He later
turns up in relation to Chomsky's _Reponses Inedites_, and Chomsky turns up
in relation to his _Droit et Histoire_. (These are the "other claims" you
opted to ignore rather than address, but they remain facts even if ignored.)
Both men were associates of Serge Thion; Guillaume claims that he introduced
the two of them in 1978, and Chomsky has not disputed this claim.
Between these, Guillaume turns up as editor for the French edition of
Chomsky's magnum opus. Coincidence? Perhaps. Guillaume headed a
council-communist splinter group, so in some ways he was a natural choice to
edit Chomsky's work. I can't help but think there was more too it than this.
As you say, it's odd that a mainstream publisher would pick someone like
Guillaume. Did somebody involved in the publication suggest his name,
perhaps?
We can imagine various ways he might have gotten the job, but these are
pure conjecture. The fact remains that it is evidence of a connection
between Chomsky and Guillaume -- which becomes outright collaboration in
_Reponses Inedites_ and _Droit et Histoire_. The "Pit and Pendulum" series
is one piece of evidence, important, though not (as you opine) the strongest
when taken in isolation.
> [snip of other allegations repeated from Cohn]
Actually this is a question I've researched quite extensively, irrespective
of Cohn's polemic. That's one reason I feel entitled to fault Cohn's essay.
Fortunately I have access to the Library of Congress (living in the torture
and political murder capital of the world has its advantages). To my
surprise, it had all the books I've referred to in this thread -- the "Pit
and Pendulum" series, Faurisson's _Memoire en Defense_, Chomsky's _Reponses
Inedites_, and Guillaume's _Droit et Histoire_. I've read them -- and
skimmed Thion's account of Faurisson as well.
Time out of my life that I can never get back, unfortunately...
> > Chomsky himself, based on much less evidence than this, has accused
> > of being fascists, crypto-Stalinists, and even Nazi sypmathizers. Apparently
> > he expects consideration that he does not grant to others.
> More unsubstantiated tripe.
From the essay which appeared in Faurisson's _Memoire en Defense_:
: I will not pursue the exercise, but suppose we were
: to apply similar standards to others, asking, for example, what their
: attitude was towards the French war in Indochina, or to Stalinism, decades
: ago. Perhaps no more need be said.
This is one example of his tendency to go beyond a mere free-speech
defense. He should have said, "Even if Faurisson is an anti-Semite, he still
has rights." Instead Chomsky defended Faurisson against the charge that he
was an anti-Semite, and attacked Faurisson's critics (even as he refused to
offer any criticism of Faurisson).
Note that he clearly implies that his critics are Stalinists and
imperialists (if they are not, his argument is hollow). But having made the
accusation, he deigns not to support it. He weasels out: first "I will not
pursue the exercise"; then he immediately pursues it just enough to make the
accusation; then deigns not to pursue it to the point of substantiating the
accusation.
Chomsky returned to this theme throughout the Faurisson controversy. Every
time he was criticized, he infered that they supported censoring Faurisson
(even if they said otherwise), and called them Stalinists. He didn't know
what their attitude towards Stalin was. Even if it was a metaphor, he didn't
know that these critics wanted Faurisson suppressed. On the contrary, most
of them said that they agreed with his free-speech argument.
So Chomsky had no evidence that they favored suppressing Faurisson. He did
have evidence that they opposed doing so. Following his characteristic
pattern, he dismissed inconvenient evidence as lies, and made the argument he
wanted to make irrespective of it.
[Guillaume as a coucil communist]
> I suspected that Cohn was lying about that as well, though your explanation --
> that the Holocaust somehow contradicts Marxist doctrine -- makes no sense
> at all to me.
Again, I'm not relying on Cohn. I've read Guillaume's book, and also
Thion's account of the early Faurisson affair. Guillaume is clearly more a
communist than a neo-Nazi.
Regarding the Holocaust, there are two problems, one theoretical and one
practical. In theory, class-struggle and economic determinism don't really
explain the Holocaust. On the contrary, it was economically
counterproductive. Slave labor would make sense (Guillaume accepts that this
took place), but extermination doesn't. I realize that some Marxists are
able to finesse this problem ideologically, but Guillaume apparently
couldn't.
The practical problem arises from the Trotskyist argument that all parties
in the Second World War were equally wrong. The Holocaust makes it
difficult to argue that Nazi Germany and the western democracies were equally
wicked. One response is to make the democracies look worse; but another is
to make the Axis powers look less sinister. (See Chomsky's essay on A.J.
Muste for examples of both approaches.)
> I only have one question for Kalina: in a case like this, where Cohn is
> provably lying in order to smear Chomsky, you claim that he just makes
> "elementary errors", but when Chomsky makes statements of fact that you
> agree
> are correct, then he is "lying" (because he really meant something else).
Do not amputate my argument: I've called these assertions dishonest,
because the assertions are at odds with the substance of his argument. This
accusation can be substantiated by examining the substance of his argument
and comparing it to the supposedly-exculpatory assertion.
> Why
> this grotesque double standard?
Ah, very clever. I point out Mr. Clore's double standard -- and, leaving
the charge unaddressed, he throws it right back at me. Bourdieu called this
the tu-quoque strategy; schoolyard children know it as the "I know you are,
but what am I?" tactic.
Since you asked, the difference lies in the underlying facts. Chomsky did
defend Faurisson (not just his rights in the abstract). This is a fact.
Cohn fails to prove it, but it remains a fact, as can be confirmed by
independent research.
On the other hand: in the late 1970s there was credible evidence of
massive human rights abuses in communist Indochina. This is a fact. Chomsky
insistently denied it, but it remains a fact.
Put simply, then, the difference is that when you strip away the polemics,
exaggeration and errors, Cohn was telling the truth, and Chomsky was lying.
That doesn't mean Cohn's errors are acceptable; as I've said, I don't
think his essay is very good. I wouldn't rely on Cohn for the facts of the
Faurisson affair. Nor would I rely on Chomsky for facts about world affairs.
Sauce for the goose...
William Barwell
>is one of the weaker critical essays of Chomsky. It's strongly polemical and
>makes some elementary errors. These errors allow people like Mr. Clore to
>ignore the very real and damaging facts of Chomsky and l'affaire Faurisson.
character assassination worthy of the cult of Scientology at it's
worst. A fandango of reactionary right winged failed character
assassination attempts thta simply shows how intellectually corrupt
one can get.
Clore gutted these guys in his reports (Thanks Dan), and you
Kalina, show how thoroughly depraved you are by posting
these thorougghly discredited libels and then reiterating
your false charges as if nobody noticed that they are obvious lies.
You have no credibility, Your judgement is lacking in your choice
of 'authorities'.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
cl...@columbia-center.org
> conclusions in his book. Reading the back cover is almost enough to draw
> the correct conclusion about the book: "When Noam Chomsky came to the
> defense of the French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson, he astonished
> friends and enemies alike. Chomsky has vigorously defended his acction as
> being noting more than the protection of an individual's civil liberties,
> quite unconnected with that individual's views and writings. Werner Cohn,
> in this meticulously documented study, shows that Chomsky's defense of
> Faurisson is much more than that, and indeed, that it is connected to some
> of Chomsky's deepest political orientations, *in particular his unwavering
> animus toward the United States and Israel.* In doing so, he sheds
> surprising light on Chomsky's politics." [my emphasis]
>
> intellectual and an unquestioning supporter of the Israeli state. As the
> emphasized segment implies, the whole gist of the thing is to argue that
> Chomsky is, in effect, an anti-semite due to his opposition to Zionism.
>
> maniacal first amendment absolutist can tell from all available evidence,
> exactly as Chomsky put it: a defense of the right to publish one's
> thoughts. Well in the tradition of Voltaire and the Western liberalism
> (in the broad sense) that Werner--and Hunter--are so unabashedly proud of.
>
>
> "I have tried to find references in the NYT to Chomsky's neo-Nazi
> involvements and could find only two items, out of the over one hundred
> deveoted tohim, that allude to this side of his activities. The story is
> quite different in France where Le Monde and other publications regularly
> refer to Chomsky's relationship to the French neo-Nazi propaganist Robert
> Faurisson." Citations are nonexistent in this "meticulously documented
> study" to prove the above assertions.
This old post I found while researching Cohn's work may provide the answer
to why Cohn provides no citations for those assertions:
From 10057...@compuserve.com Mon Dec 9 06:06:22 PST 1996 Article: 84567
of alt.revisionism Path:
nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.c
s.a
thabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!hammer
.uo
regon.edu!hunter.premier.net!feed1.news.erols.com!worldnet.att.net!uunet!in1.
uu.
net!192.220.251.22!netnews.nwnet.net!news-hub.interserv.net!news.sprynet.com!
new s From: 10057...@compuserve.com (Emmanuel Marin) Newsgroups:
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.revisionism,soc.cultu
re. french Subject: An open question to Werner Cohn Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996
14:25:09 GMT Organization: Sprynet News Service Lines: 109 Message-ID:
<58g4dd$q...@juliana.sprynet.com> References:
<58e3j2$9...@Networking.Stanford.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host:
ld46-230.compuserve.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Xref:
nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.socialism.trotsky:17470
alt.fan.noam-chomsky:19473 alt.revisionism:84567 soc.culture.french:67511
In Cohn's book (date : 1989 and 1995), now on Nizkor, one can
read, (in the first .htm)
"I have tried to find references in the New York Times to Chomsky's
neo-Nazi involvementes and could find only two items, out of the
over one hundred devoted to him, that allude to this side of his
activities. The story is quite different in France where Le Monde
and other publications regularly refer to Chomsky's relationship
to the French neo-Nazi propagandist Robert Faurisson."
Alas for Mr. Cohn, Le Monde's archives since 1987 are on
Compuserve-France (I don't know about Compuserve-US).
To test Cohn's claim, I simply typed "Chomsky" as the
keyword to search for, "Anywhere in the document".
"Chomsky" appears 43 times in Le Monde since 01.01.1987.
I read all the headers (I have to pay to have the complete
articles so I did not read them all), and read the articles
completely when the headers looked like the header of an article
related to the revisionism.
Four of them are related to the revisionists. I must add that
last year French media wrote *A LOT* about revisionists since
French most popular figure Abbe Pierre was caught in the
storm with his endorsement of the revisionist book of a friend
of his, published by P. Guillaume, the 'crucial source' of Cohn,
and the publisher of Faurisson. [For the comparison, despite
the fact that Faurisson has no direct role in the Abbe Pierre
controversy, Faurisson's name appears 74 times in Le Monde's
database...] The mere fact that Chomsky's name appears only
4 times in an article related to the revisionists in Le Monde in the
last 10 years could be enough to conclude Cohn's claim is yet
another fabrication. (Although I think that Cohn is sincere in his
pathological fabrication, because otherwise he would never
have posted on the Internet or put his text on the Web, since
now all the French readers can read his book - I don't think it
has been published in France - and can judge how preposterous
his depiction of France is and explain to credulous US readers
why...)
But there is more, because 3 of these 4 times Chomsky's name
appears in Le Monde are related to... the debunking of
the rumor Cohn is trying to make popular on the Internet !!
One is a letter from a reader of Le Monde in which he
says he had been outraged to hear Chomsky called a
revisionist on a French radio station. The two remaining
ones are a comment about "Manufacturing Consent"
when it was shown at "L'Entrepot" (an anti-fascist
place in Paris, in case you wonder), and a mea-culpa
>from Le Monde because the initial comment contained
the claim that Chomsky had written a preface for
Faurisson, while we all know this is not the case.
The fourth times is the appearance of Chomsky's name
in a factual biography of Faurisson that Le Monde
published when Faurisson was victim of an attack
by unknowns.
Let's continue with another archive which is on
Compuserve-France : the last 2 years of L'Express
(it means it includes the archives during the
Abbe Pierre controversy). L'Express has an important
role in the press when it comes to revisionism. The
beginning of the French media hype about revisionist is,
in my opinion, an article from L'Express, an interview
of Darquier de Pellepoix, in which his revisionist
theories are presented. At that time, it caused such
a shock in France that even the President had
public words about it. [As for the media hype about
Faurisson, it has been caused by Faurisson's
appearance on France's most popular radio
interview of the time - Compare with Cohn's claims
that without Chomsky, Faurisson and al. would
have remained unknown in France....]. So, how
many times does Chomsky name appear
in L'Express ' archives ? Zero...
Let's conclude with the only Internet site
which contains archives anybody can
read : Le Monde Diplomatique. Well,
same result : Zero... Have a look at for
instance at :
http://www.ina.fr/CP/MondeDiplo/
In particular :
[...]/1996/06/VIDELIER/3747.html
You'll find names that also appears in
Cohn's book (Verges, etc...), but no
Chomsky...
Cohn may argue that Le Monde Diplomatique
is neo-nazi, though, since Chomsky wrote in
it. Too bad he won't hear the thunder of laughs
>from the readers of soc.culture.french, then...
So, Mr Cohn, can you please give me some
references of these alleged French articles
which, according to your claims about France,
keep on popping up everywhere in the
French press about Chomsky's revisionism ?
Emmanuel Marin
Paris, France
cka...@capaccess.org
dr...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (David Graeber) wrote:
> All you have to do is watch Manufacturing
> Consent and you can see Chomsky state that he believes
> that anyone who denies the holocaust by doing so
> loses their own soul.
I confess I'm not much of a moviegoer. I'd be interested to know the
context of the statement -- nevertheless, I commend him for it. Had he
said something similar in "Quelques Commentaires", Guillaume would never have
used it as a preface, and we all would have been spared a lot of bother.
> It seems to me the most elementary
> principle of intellectual integrity that, if one
> wishes to know someone's opinion on a question
> like this, one asks them.
Certainly. But what if the person is dishonest? They may give you false
information about their opinion, or evade the question.
> This has been done
> a thousand times with Chomsky and always he
> says the same thing: he believes supporting
> freedom of speech means first and foremost
> supporting freedom to say the things one hates
> and that's what he's doing with the
> holocaust deniers.
Problem also is, Chomsky didn't say he hated Holocaust denial or Faurisson
. He defended both against charges of anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism. He
continually described the affair in terms favored by that movement, and
nobody else. That's why he was criticized. His argument about "free speech"
is a reply to criticism that existed only as his straw man.
> Now, maybe you think all
> his public statements are an elaborate lie
> but if that's your position, then you
> could state it outright. Trying to imply
> Chomsky has been lukewarm in his acknowledgement
> of the holocaust
Whoa there, hoss. I never said that Chomsky was lukewarm in his
acknowledgement of the Holocaust. In fact he has acknowledged it
vociferously, on numerous occasions.
Granted, on every such occasion, he invoked the Holocaust merely as a
pejorative analogy for the behavior of the United States. There is no
evidence he understands it as anything more than a rhetorical device. But
that device would be useless if he did not acknowledge its reality.
What I said was that he has never dissociated himself from the Holocaust
denial movement's use of his name to advance their cause. Nor (to my
knowledge) has he ever described it in terms that disparage its legitimacy.
On the contrary he has described it in terms that lend it legitimacy. That
is my objection.
> demonstrates that you are either
> so completely uninformed on this issue that
> there's no reason to take anything you say
> seriously, or else, that it is you yourself
> who are being consciously deceitful.
This is sadly typical of Chomsky and his defenders. Assert their own
version of reality as unquestionable fact, then dismiss all rival views as
either ignorant or mendacious.
Unfortunately, the facts of the case are damning. And they do not cease to
exist merely because you refuse to acknowledge them.
cka...@capaccess.org
dr...@is4.nyu.edu (David Rolfe Graeber) wrote:
[quoting Chomsky]
> "Goebbels was in favor of freedom for
> speach he liked. Stalin was in favor of freedom for
> speech he liked. If you are in favor of
> freedom of speech that means you are in favor
> of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.
> Otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech."
Certainly so.
> "With regard to my defense of people who express
> utterly offensive views - I don't have the slightest
> doubt that every commissar says "you're defending
> that person's views." No, I'm not. I'm defending his
> right to express them. The difference is crucial, and
> the difference has been understood, outside of
> fascist circles, since the 18th century."
Here we have a problem. It is Chomsky, and not his critics, who fudged
this "crucial difference". Had he merely defended Faurisson's right to
express his offensive views, there would have been no controversy. The
problem is that he went beyond such a defense, and commented on Faurisson's
views themselves -- in such a way as to make them appear not offensive.
> "Going back years, I am absolutely certain that
> I've taken far more extreme positions on people who deny
> the holocaust than you have. For instance you go back
> to my earliest articles and you find that I say 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."
He may be referring to the point in _American Power and the New Mandarins_
in which he says that even by entering into a debate about the existence of
the Holocaust, one compromises one's humanity.
This is a quote he repeated throughout the Faurisson controversy to
establish that he did acknowledge the Holocaust -- although his critics
did not accuse him of being a denier himself.
Typically, he was not talking about the Holocaust as such, but about US
foreign policy. He was describing his reaction to the prospect of debating
it. (Lionel Abel lampooned this view as: "One should be so apoplectic about
the war as to be incapable of giving reasons against it.")
Yet when defending Faurisson, he demanded that Faurisson's critics enter
into precisely this sort of debate. Witness:
> "If anyone wants to refute Faurrisson
> there's certainly no difficulty in doing so."
> "It is a poor service to the memory of the
> victims of the holocaust to adopt a central
> doctrine of their murderers."
This last illustrates another interesting argument that Chomsky used
throughout the controversy. To deny the Holocaust was not implicitly
supportive of Nazism; but to criticize the denial of the Holocaust was
Nazi-esque.
( Yes, I know that in Chomsky's spin, they were not merely criticizing
Holocaust denial but also trying to suppress it. However, this is a
falsehood.)
Eric, da Red
William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>In article <6rhh1n$hid$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <cka...@capaccess.org> wrote:
>>is one of the weaker critical essays of Chomsky. It's strongly polemical and
>>makes some elementary errors. These errors allow people like Mr. Clore to
>>ignore the very real and damaging facts of Chomsky and l'affaire Faurisson.
>character assassination worthy of the cult of Scientology at it's
>worst. A fandango of reactionary right winged failed character
>assassination attempts thta simply shows how intellectually corrupt
>one can get.
>
>Clore gutted these guys in his reports (Thanks Dan), and you
>Kalina, show how thoroughly depraved you are by posting
>these thorougghly discredited libels and then reiterating
>your false charges as if nobody noticed that they are obvious lies.
The amusing thing is that kalina was completely trounced on this same
topic a few years ago. He was wrong then, and he's wrong now.
Apparently, he couldn't take a hint.
--
Quote Of The Week: "She's writing a book on the Ten Commandments?" asks
Dr. Laura's original mentor, veteran Los Angeles radio personality Bill
Ballance. He snorts derisively. "She's broken them all."
cka...@capaccess.org
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
[to me, regarding Cohn]
> You have no credibility, Your judgement is lacking in your choice
> of 'authorities'.
Hmm. When did I invoke Cohn as an authority? I thought I did precisely
the opposite.
And what of Chomsky (and by extension Mr. Clore) -- who uses the
propaganda of communist dictatorship as "evidence" that a totalitarian
propaganda system exists in free societies?
And what of your continuing claims about the CIA, the Contras and drugs --
claims apparently based on fourth-hand reports derived from anonymous
sources presented in a brazenly ideological context?
I'm sorry if you find my judgment lacking. But not real sorry.
David Rolfe Graeber
> > This has been done
> > a thousand times with Chomsky and always he
> > says the same thing: he believes supporting
> > freedom of speech means first and foremost
> > supporting freedom to say the things one hates
> > and that's what he's doing with the
> > holocaust deniers.
>
> Problem also is, Chomsky didn't say he hated Holocaust denial or Faurisson
He said he despised Faurisson's views and has
said it over and over.
> What I said was that he has never dissociated himself from the Holocaust
> denial movement's use of his name to advance their cause. Nor (to my
> knowledge) has he ever described it in terms that disparage its legitimacy.
> On the contrary he has described it in terms that lend it legitimacy. That
> is my objection.
He said he despised Faurisson's views and has
said it over and over.
> > demonstrates that you are either
> > so completely uninformed on this issue that
> > there's no reason to take anything you say
> > seriously, or else, that it is you yourself
> > who are being consciously deceitful.
>
> This is sadly typical of Chomsky and his defenders. Assert their own
> version of reality as unquestionable fact, then dismiss all rival views as
> either ignorant or mendacious.
No, actually I provided extensive
quotes from Chomsky in which he makes his
position clear. And I stated - and have now
repeated for the third time in this very
post - that he has said he despises
Faurisson's views on endless occasions.
I assert it as unquestionable fact because
it is; I have in fact provided verbatim
quotes from Chomsky in which he:
a) says he despises these views
b) describes them as "utterly
offensive"
c) says they are easily disproved
d) says that anyone who asserts
them loses their humanity by doing so
I mean, what more do you want?
Now, look. You've just admitted in front
of everyone that you, a person who claims
to be some sort of authority on Chomsky,
has never even bothered to go see the
mass-released motion picture about him.
You've been going around saying he's
never said things that hundreds of
thousands of Americans have actually
seen him say right there on the big screen
in their local movie-houses. Why not
just admit that you've done the man
wrong - that is, unless you really
do believe that all his public statements
are outright lies, in which case, the
only honest course is to say that's
what you think and let readers make
up their mind for themselves about
whether they chose to believe you or
Noam about what Noam Chomsky's opinions
actually are.
DG
David Rolfe Graeber
--
cka...@capaccess.org
berg...@big.aa.net (Eric, da Red) wrote:
> The amusing thing is that kalina was completely trounced on this same
> topic a few years ago. He was wrong then, and he's wrong now.
> Apparently, he couldn't take a hint.
Ah, the memories... Fortunately I am able to control them with medication.
(But still the dreams come...)
I don't recall being "completely trounced" on this topic. Not even
partially trounced. On the contrary: it sticks in my mind as one of the few
times that I wasn't trounced. Dhanesh vanished into the ether (which might
have been unrelated, I suppose), and the rest of the pirates were reduced to
hand-waving, obfuscation and spin. I counted coup on the Faurisson thread.
Of course, it was a long time ago. Perhaps you recall a good explanation
for the argument, in a book endorsed by Dhanesh, that all Jews are
inescapably racist and a danger to non-Jews. Or for Chomsky's insistence
that he didn't know anything about Faurisson's views, but also disagreed with
them, but also thought they suggested he was merely an "apolitical liberal",
not only not a Nazi, but an anti-Nazi.
After all, we live in an era when oral sex doesn't count as "sexual
relations", so I'm willing to believe there's some explanation for these...
interesting... statements. But I don't remember the pirates offering it back
in 1995.
Hunter H. Watson
<cfa...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
> In alt.politics.socialism.trotsky David Graeber
<dr...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
> : It seems to me the most elementary
> : principle of intellectual integrity that, if one
> : wishes to know someone's opinion on a question
> : like this, one asks them.
Well, certainly one will seek that testimony and take it into
consideration. But the credibility of the witness is always an issue. And
recognizing that it is an issue is a part of ensuring the intellectual
integrity of the inquiry.
This has been done
> : a thousand times with Chomsky and always he
> : says the same thing: he believes supporting
> : freedom of speech means first and foremost
> : supporting freedom to say the things one hates
> : and that's what he's doing with the
> : holocaust deniers.
>
> Amen, and well said!
Not quite, Chris. Will you apply this standard to everyone? If an accused
denies the crime does he thereby go free? Were that the rule there would
be few convictions. Yet most who are charged are convicted. No, his
credibility will be tested by a jury of his peers. Cohn is one of
Chomsky's jurors.
>
> : Now, maybe you think all
> : his public statements are an elaborate lie
> : but if that's your position, then you
> : could state it outright.
The issue relates to *one* of his public statements which Mr. Graeber said
has been repeated a thousand times.
Trying to imply
> : Chomsky has been lukewarm in his acknowledgement
> : of the holocaust demonstrates that you are either
> : so completely uninformed on this issue that
> : there's no reason to take anything you say
> : seriously, or else, that it is you yourself
> : who are being consciously deceitful.
Not accepting the denial of Chomsky at face value is tantamount to being
"consciously deceitful"? There is an unsavoury level of commitment
inherent in this. Perhaps this particular juror should have been
eliminated at voir dire.
Hunter Watson
Hunter H. Watson
<cfa...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
> Comrade Anarchist Dan has done a bang-up job of devastating Werner's major
> conclusions in his book. Reading the back cover is almost enough to draw
> the correct conclusion about the book: "When Noam Chomsky came to the
> defense of the French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson, he astonished
> friends and enemies alike. Chomsky has vigorously defended his acction as
> being noting more than the protection of an individual's civil liberties,
> quite unconnected with that individual's views and writings. Werner Cohn,
> in this meticulously documented study, shows that Chomsky's defense of
> Faurisson is much more than that, and indeed, that it is connected to some
> of Chomsky's deepest political orientations, *in particular his unwavering
> animus toward the United States and Israel.* In doing so, he sheds
> surprising light on Chomsky's politics." [my emphasis]
Chris, it sounds to me here and below that you haven't read the book
through. As you use it to beat on me and it is my copy you use, I ask that
you return it.
>
> This is a blurb by Nathan Glazer, a reknowned neo-conservative
> intellectual and an unquestioning supporter of the Israeli state. As the
> emphasized segment implies, the whole gist of the thing is to argue that
> Chomsky is, in effect, an anti-semite due to his opposition to Zionism.
That's not the gist of it at all. Cohn's book may not be perfect but it is
nowhere near that unsophisticated. You would know it if you had read it.
>
> The Faurisson debacle was, as far as this bookseller of fifteen years and
> maniacal first amendment absolutist can tell from all available evidence,
> exactly as Chomsky put it: a defense of the right to publish one's
> thoughts. Well in the tradition of Voltaire and the Western liberalism
> (in the broad sense) that Werner--and Hunter--are so unabashedly proud of.
You're simply wrong, factually. Send me back my copy and get one of your
own. I will be happy to talk about it.
>
> A few more quotes, just from the first couple pages:
Yup, just from the first couple of pages.
>
> "I have tried to find references in the NYT to Chomsky's neo-Nazi
> involvements and could find only two items, out of the over one hundred
> deveoted tohim, that allude to this side of his activities. The story is
> quite different in France where Le Monde and other publications regularly
> refer to Chomsky's relationship to the French neo-Nazi propaganist Robert
> Faurisson." Citations are nonexistent in this "meticulously documented
> study" to prove the above assertions.
This point is peripheral and the book is directed to an English speaking
readership. Typical academic protocol wouldn't require those articles to
be documented. Is anything more said about those French articles? In any
event I have read the book and it *is* meticulously documented.
>
> Again, from the intro:
From the intro, eh?
>
> "The [Holocaust denying) Institute for Historical Review's publishing and
> bookselling arm is called Noontide Press. Holocaust-denying is only one
> part of the antisemitic menu of this supermarket of Nazism. The latest NP
> catalog is dated 1995. Among its offerings we find Nazi-made mvies that
> are banned in Germany because of their brazen propaganda, as well as the
> notorious _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, books by Adolf Hitler and
> Joseph Goebbels, a book by the late Father Coughlin, and the infamous _The
> International Jew_ by Henry Ford. Chomsky is represented by five different
> items.... Chomsky, according to the IHR, 'enlightens as no other writer on
> Israel, Zionism, and American complicity."
>
> IHR, at least up until a recent split and family feud, was owned by Willis
> Carto, publisher of the Spotlight, the US' largest circulation
> anti-semitic/fascist-oriented newspaper. However, despite all this,
> Chomsky's inclusion in NP's catalog *does not* tie Chomsky in any way to
> an anti-semitic conspiracy or the neo-Nazi movement in general.
Take a look again. Has Chomsky's work been published and sold by the
"publisher of the Spotlight, the US' largest circulation
anti-semitic/fascist-oriented newspaper?" How, Chris, did that come about?
Chomsky's work is not in the public domain, is it? Did he not contract
with these people? And if that's the case does it mean nothing to you? You
have my book. I'm at something of a disadvantage here.
It's
> tantamount to saying that because James P. Cannon said, at his trial for
> conspiracy, that he'd read _Mein Kampf_, ergo, he was a fascist. This is
> guilt by association, mud-smearing, about as loathsome a practice one can
> find.
Balderdash, the analogy would be to Canon choosing to have his tracts
published in partnership with Hitler. Your argument suggests that we
should not be permitted to raise an eyebrow at that.
There's far more to it than that. Some of the case Werner levels at
Chomsky is circumstantial but the accumulation of evidence is extremely
persuasive. I don't believe you have read it.
>
> Hunter and Werner, I respect both of you, but I condemn this kind of
> behavior from the bottom of my heart. Werner, I understand your love of
> Israel and passionate Zionism, but to use innuendo to smear a prominent
> anti-Zionist is beneath you.
Chomsky is far more than a prominent anti-Zionist. His hatred of the
United States exceeds his hatred of Israel. My assessment of him is the
same as that of the main stream scholars quoted by Werner in the book. I
ask you to dig them out and post them.
You may be opposed to anti-Zionism, but
> I implore you to use the tools of reason rather than blacklisting to
> put forward your positions.
You don't even have this straight. Werner is a Zionist. He believes in
anyone's freedom to be an honest anti-Zionist. What he opposes bitterly is
anti-Semitism. And they must not be equated as you do. They are
fundamentally different things. He accuses Chomsky of anti-Semitism based
on a large accumulation of evidence.
Blacklisting?!?! Chris, damn it, you have not read the book. Chomsky is
undeserving of such a defense by you. You are mistaken.
>
> Hunter, your misplaced patriotism, as reflected in your support of the
> CIA, a *truly* criminal organization, etc., doesn't hide the fact that
> your positions arise out of a horror for a mass politics that demolishes
> the individual and his/her rights and being, and that you believe that the
> US is the best defense of this in the world's history.
You're not giving apst much attention and I can not blame you for that. I
have yet to support the CIA any more than you as a leftist have been a
supporter of the former NKVD/KGB. As to the U.S. being the best defense of
individual rights, I've never said such a thing or intimated it. What I
have said is that the United States took a leadership role in the Cold War
and that by and large it is a damned good thing she did. We can be proud
of having shouldered that burden. I have systematically condemned criminal
behavior by Americans during the Cold War. What more do you want from an
individual? I suppose I could volunteer to pay reparations in expiation of
my share of the communal guilt? The idea that the American people should
have to apologise for having slain a monster like the Soviet Union is
ludicrous.
However, the very
> rule of law that you uphold so virogously is tarnished mightily by your
> enthusiastic support of stuff like this (or of the School for the
> Americas, or the CIA, etc., etc.)
Enthusiastic support of WHAT, Chris? These assertions have been made
repeatedly, mostly by Proyect and the likes of Diamond. Apparently they
stick in your mind. Deja News is out there for you and I have every post
I've ever made. You're perpetuating slanders by the most persistent
slanderers on apst. It's beneath you.
>
> How can you support this stuff? I just don't get it.
I support the CIA? I support the School for the Americas? Sorry, Chris,
you've just bought the lies and you are forgetting that I am a liberal.
I'm not a Chomsky
> fan--I find his stuff indigestible--but this is thoroughly beyond the pale
> and thoroughly mystifying.
Send me my book, please. You're obviously not benefiting from it. As to
Chomsky his stuff is indigestible because well founded premises are
replaced by glib exaggerations and facile nonsense. He is consumed by
hatred of his country. The academic community respects his work in
linguistics but holds his polemics in contempt. Cohn will help you
understand why if you only read him.
Hunter Watson
David Rolfe Graeber
> In article <e4gD1.23937$MV.17...@news.teleport.com>, Chris Faatz
> <cfa...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > In alt.politics.socialism.trotsky David Graeber
> <dr...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
>
> > : It seems to me the most elementary
> > : principle of intellectual integrity that, if one
> > : wishes to know someone's opinion on a question
> > : like this, one asks them.
>
> Well, certainly one will seek that testimony and take it into
> consideration. But the credibility of the witness is always an issue. And
> recognizing that it is an issue is a part of ensuring the intellectual
> integrity of the inquiry.
Once again, the same old accusation:
every public statement Chomsky has ever made
is a blatant lie. Yet somehow these people
never _start_ by laying out their actual
position, which seems to be that while
Noam Chomsky spends his entire public
life going around denouncing fascism
and everything that reminds him of it, all
of his public statements are elaborate
lies and he's really a secret fascist.
If you had any intellectual honesty, you
would lay out your actual position _first_.
Instead, it's always the same dishonest
game: first the claim that Chomsky has
never denounced the fascists' position,
hoping the audience doesn't know any better,
then, once clear evidence is produced
that he has, the fallback "oh, he's just
lying because his choice of publishers
(or whatever) shows what he really thinks".
Anyone who relies on such
argumentative strategies already
demonstrates, to any reasonable
reader, that they (not Chomsky) are
the ones being fundamentally deceitful
and there's no reason to take their
arguments at all seriously.
>
> This has been done
> > : a thousand times with Chomsky and always he
> > : says the same thing: he believes supporting
> > : freedom of speech means first and foremost
> > : supporting freedom to say the things one hates
> > : and that's what he's doing with the
> > : holocaust deniers.
> >
> > Amen, and well said!
>
> Not quite, Chris. Will you apply this standard to everyone? If an accused
> denies the crime does he thereby go free? Were that the rule there would
> be few convictions. Yet most who are charged are convicted. No, his
> credibility will be tested by a jury of his peers. Cohn is one of
> Chomsky's jurors.
I see. You are convicting Chomsky of
a speech-crime. Amazing. This is of course
the exact psychology which Chomsky found so
offensive and which made him feel obliged
to defend even such right-wing creeps to
begin with. To be honest, I had serious
doubts myself whether Chomsky had chosen the
right place to make a stand on such issues
but now that I have seen the psychology of
people like you, I've changed my mind. Your
kind of fascistic, Stalinist logic, which
treats speech as a criminal act, is an
insult to anyone who believes in a free
society. Reading your prose makes me
feel physically ill. Of course, like Chomsky,
but unlike you, I'd defend to the death your right to
say it, but it truly is repulsive.
DG
cka...@capaccess.org
> > Problem also is, Chomsky didn't say he hated Holocaust denial or Faurisson
> He said he despised Faurisson's views and has
> said it over and over.
> He said he despised Faurisson's views and has
> said it over and over.
Really? Then I'm sure you can find me a sample quote.
He did say that he disagreed with Faurisson's view. That falls well short
of saying he "despised" it.
[...]
> I assert it as unquestionable fact because
> it is; I have in fact provided verbatim
> quotes from Chomsky in which he:
> a) says he despises these views
> b) describes them as "utterly
> offensive"
> c) says they are easily disproved
> d) says that anyone who asserts
> them loses their humanity by doing so
> I mean, what more do you want?
I'd like quotes that actually said this. He doesn't say it in the movie
-- at least not in the quotes that you provide.
He refers abstractly to the importance of free speech for offensive views,
views that "you despise". He does _not_ specify that he despises Faurisson's
views or considers them offensive. Perhaps this was implied -- but Mr.
Clore has been very adamant that I not draw inferences beyond what it
explicitly supported by the text.
Nor did he say that anyone who asserts Faurisson's views loses his
humanity. He makes reference to an early quote in which he said that you
lose your humanity when you enter into a debate on the existence of the
Holocaust. He does not say that Faurisson or Holocaust deniers generally
have lost their humanity.
The quote had nothing to do with Faurisson. It predates the Faurisson
affair by more than a decade. He contradicted it in his writings about
Faurisson. What's more, the quote isn't even about the Holocaust as such;
it's about US foreign policy in Vietnam, with the Holocaust invoked as a
pejorative analogy.
Granted: he did say that anyone who wanted could easily refute Faurisson's
views. This is something, at least. Yet whenever anyone tried to prove
Faurisson wrong, Chomsky accused them of wanting to censor him -- as if
asserting the facts necessarily means that all other views must be
suppressed.
But let's suppose that Chomsky actually did clearly denounce Faurisson's
views in the movie of _MC_. That's nice. Unfortunately that doesn't erase
all the positive statements he made about Faurisson during the affair --
"apolitical liberal", "anti-Nazi", and so on.
> Now, look. You've just admitted in front
> of everyone that you, a person who claims
> to be some sort of authority on Chomsky,
> has never even bothered to go see the
> mass-released motion picture about him.
1. I never claimed to be any sort of authority on Chomsky. There are
whole chunks of his work that I know little or nothing about -- his
comments about Israel and Central America, for instance. Mainly I'm
interested in his early work, prior to the early 1980s, and in the Propaganda
Model generally.
2. My interest in Chomsky dates from 1994 at the earliest, by which time
the movie was no longer in local theaters. And none of the local shops carry
the videotape. No doubt both of these facts can be attributed to corporate
censorship...
3. Generally I don't go to movies. The exceptions are movies about war or
spaceships. _Manufacturing Consent_ seemed unlikely to score high on either
scale, so I never bothered.
4. Your quote from the movie contains nothing that Chomsky hasn't said
more coherently in print sources, so I don't see that I missed anything
important for purposes of this discussion.
David Rolfe Graeber
>
> [...]
> > I assert it as unquestionable fact because
> > it is; I have in fact provided verbatim
> > quotes from Chomsky in which he:
> > a) says he despises these views
> > b) describes them as "utterly
> > offensive"
> > c) says they are easily disproved
> > d) says that anyone who asserts
> > them loses their humanity by doing so
> > I mean, what more do you want?
>
> I'd like quotes that actually said this. He doesn't say it in the movie
> -- at least not in the quotes that you provide.
Every single one of those comes
from quotes from the movie which I did
provide. If you're going to do some
Philadelphia lawyer rigamarole and say
"you can't prove from the quotes themselves
that they are necessarily referring to
Faurisson" or saying "just because
Chomsky said he defended Faurisson
because he believes freedom of speech
is freedom to defend speech he
despises doesn't _necessarily_ mean
he despises Faurisson's speech" or
something similarly ridiculous all you
will do is show you are so utterly
unwilling to give a fair judgement
that nothing you say should be taken
in any way seriously. But why am I
even saying this? You've already
made yourself look completely ridiculous
in front of everyone; apparently, you
are just the sort of person who is
incapable of realizing he's making
a fool of himself.
> 1. I never claimed to be any sort of authority on Chomsky. There are
> whole chunks of his work that I know little or nothing about -- his
> comments about Israel and Central America, for instance. Mainly I'm
> interested in his early work, prior to the early 1980s, and in the Propaganda
> Model generally.
You made sweeping claims that he had
never said things which he indeed has.
You have proved you know nothing about
his actual positions. When presented with
what anyone else would consider overwhelming
evidence that your statements about him
were wrong, you made yourself even more
ridiculous by denying what was right there in
front of everybody's eyes.
There must be a psychological
term for what you have: the chronic
inability to realize when one has been
utterly humiliated. You seem to be the
only person in the entire world who
doesn't realize that Dan Clore made
you look like a complete idiot last
time around; now you're determined
to ensure anyone who didn't catch you
make a fool of yourself the last
time can have a chance now.
DG
cka...@capaccess.org
> from quotes from the movie which I did
> provide. If you're going to do some
> Philadelphia lawyer rigamarole and say
> "you can't prove from the quotes themselves
> that they are necessarily referring to
> Faurisson" or saying "just because
> Chomsky said he defended Faurisson
> because he believes freedom of speech
> is freedom to defend speech he
> despises doesn't _necessarily_ mean
> he despises Faurisson's speech" or
Well, Mr. Clore has insisted that I _not_ draw inferences about Chomsky's
meaning beyond what is explicitly supported by the text. Surely this
standard applies even when the necessary inference is exculpatory, not just
when it is derogatory. Or are we obliged to apply our reasoning selectively
merely because it suits Chomsky that we do so?
In your quote, he offered a generic argument about civil liberties. He
defends free speech for offensive views in the abstract -- for views that
"you despise." This is an argument from principle.
Chomsky himself insists that the principle is independent of Faurisson's
actual views. Well, that works both ways. If his generic defense of civil
liberties is unrelated to Faurisson's actual views, we can't say that it
favors them -- but nor can we say that it _disparages_ them. Or are we
again obliged to be inconsistent on his behalf?
Chomsky seems to be incapable of constructing a simple declarative sentence
disparaging Faurisson's Holocaust denial. He has never said that he, Noam
Chomsky, personally, finds Faurisson's views offensive or despicable. Of
course, if he were only defending civil liberties in principle, that wouldn't
matter. Freedom of speech is unaffected by the nature of the views
expressed.
Problem is he _did_ make simple, declarative statements about Faurisson's
specific views. Those statements were _favorable_. That, and not the free
speech argument, is what precipitated the criticism. He has no problem
flatly declaring that Faurisson is an "anti-Nazi", but when he refers to
"offensive views", he can't do better than abstract implications in the
second-person.
But let's suppose that we accept those abstract implications as reflecting
his own first-person attitude towards Faurisson. That still doesn't explain
his earlier comments, nor why he was explicit when complimenting Faurisson
(and condemning his critics) but resorted to indirect implication when
faulting him.
David Rolfe Graeber
cka...@capaccess.org wrote:
> In article <6ro8mt$bct$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
> dr...@is4.nyu.edu (David Rolfe Graeber) wrote:
> > Every single one of those comes
> > from quotes from the movie which I did
> > provide. If you're going to do some
> > Philadelphia lawyer rigamarole and say
> > "you can't prove from the quotes themselves
> > that they are necessarily referring to
> > Faurisson" or saying "just because
> > Chomsky said he defended Faurisson
> > because he believes freedom of speech
> > is freedom to defend speech he
> > despises doesn't _necessarily_ mean
> > he despises Faurisson's speech" or
> [...]
>
> Well, Mr. Clore has insisted that I _not_ draw inferences about Chomsky's
> meaning beyond what is explicitly supported by the text. Surely this
Yup. He's going to do the
Philadelphia lawyer rigamarole. Just
plain pathetic.
There's no need to even
debate with someone so obviously
mendacious. If you think you are
fooling anyone with this nonsense,
fine, go live in a fantasy world.
No one with a whit of sense is
going to believe you.
DG
cka...@capaccess.org
> > Well, Mr. Clore has insisted that I _not_ draw inferences about Chomsky's
> > meaning beyond what is explicitly supported by the text. Surely this
> Yup. He's going to do the
> Philadelphia lawyer rigamarole. Just
> plain pathetic.
This is odd. Chomsky gives an evasive, legalistic answer -- and because
I point that fact out, I'm acting like a lawyer?
> There's no need to even
> debate with someone so obviously
> mendacious. If you think you are
> fooling anyone with this nonsense,
> fine, go live in a fantasy world.
> No one with a whit of sense is
> going to believe you.
Unfortunately, Mr. Graeber, facts do not go away simply because they are
ignored.
Chomsky made simple, declarative statements in which he said that Robert
Faurisson was an "apolitial liberal". He defended Faurisson against the
charge of neo-Nazism, and insisted that if anything, he was anti-Nazi. He
has never retracted them. On the contrary, he continues to defend his
actions in the Faurisson affair (though there are certain statements he
apparently prefers not to advertize). Compare those unambiguous declarative
statements to his abstract and theoretical references to views that "you
despise".
I understand that you believe me to be so mendacious that I cannot be
trusted. That is certainly a convenient perception (and consistent with the
calibre of counter-argument typical of Chomsky and his fans). However, you
need not trust me. The relevant documents are all easily available, most of
them on-line at various Chomsky-related archive sites. They remain so even
if you choose not to acquaint yourself with them.
However, let's accept that those abstract, theoretical references to
"utterly offensive" views are also meant as specific criticism of Robert
Faurisson. That still doesn't explain Chomsky's earlier statements
complimenting Faurisson. Facts do not vanish down the memory hole just
because someone denies them to the mass media. It's easy to imagine why,
when talking to the camera, Chomsky would want to suppress his favorable
comments about Faurisson.
Remember, it's the responsibility of the intellectuals to seek the truth
and to expose lies. No matter how ideologically convenient those lies might
be.
two_...@my-dejanews.com
cka...@capaccess.org wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Chomsky seems to be incapable of constructing a simple declarative sentence
> disparaging Faurisson's Holocaust denial. He has never said that he, Noam
> Chomsky, personally, finds Faurisson's views offensive or despicable. Of
> course, if he were only defending civil liberties in principle, that wouldn't
> matter. Freedom of speech is unaffected by the nature of the views
> expressed.
>
> Problem is he _did_ make simple, declarative statements about Faurisson's
> specific views. Those statements were _favorable_. That, and not the free
> speech argument, is what precipitated the criticism. He has no problem
> flatly declaring that Faurisson is an "anti-Nazi", but when he refers to
> "offensive views", he can't do better than abstract implications in the
> second-person.
>
>
I have been following this thread over the last week with great interest.
However, I would be grateful if someone could provide some of Chomsky's
"simple declarative statements" which are favourable to Faurisson's specific
views. Please forgive me if I have missed these, but I don't recall reading
anything that fits this description yet. And it would seem unfair to demand
direct quotes from only one side of this debate...
Thanks in advance,
Jon MacLaren.
David Rolfe Graeber
> In article <6rpmur$odp$2...@news.nyu.edu>,
> dr...@is4.nyu.edu (David Rolfe Graeber) wrote:
> > cka...@capaccess.org wrote:
> > > Well, Mr. Clore has insisted that I _not_ draw inferences about Chomsky's
> > > meaning beyond what is explicitly supported by the text. Surely this
> > Yup. He's going to do the
> > Philadelphia lawyer rigamarole. Just
> > plain pathetic.
>
> This is odd. Chomsky gives an evasive, legalistic answer -- and because
> I point that fact out, I'm acting like a lawyer?
His reply was in no way legalistic;
only your utter determination to find some
way to claim it might not say what it
obviously is saying is legalistic. Take
the example of Chomsky's "to even enter into a
debate over whether the holocaust happened
is to lose one's humanity" quote. You made
the ridiculous claim that since this was in
a different context where Chomsky was talking
about other atrocities, it somehow doesn't
apply to his opinion of Faurisson. In fact,
Chomsky has repeated this line almost
every time he's asked his opinion on
Faurisson's arguments, noting that he'd
said it years before. Now, by your logic,
apparently, the fact that he had noted
he had said it years before means he's
_not_ saying it now, as if when someone
suggested I was a supporter of
gangrene, I replied "I denounced
gangrene in my first published article
years ago", that would somehow mean I
wasn't clearly denouncing gangrene. This
is just patently ridiculous and if
you had any honor or sense of decency
you would utterly ashamed of yourself.
> > There's no need to even
> > debate with someone so obviously
> > mendacious. If you think you are
> > fooling anyone with this nonsense,
> > fine, go live in a fantasy world.
> > No one with a whit of sense is
> > going to believe you.
>
> Unfortunately, Mr. Graeber, facts do not go away simply because they are
> ignored.
>
> Chomsky made simple, declarative statements in which he said that Robert
> Faurisson was an "apolitial liberal". He defended Faurisson against the
> charge of neo-Nazism, and insisted that if anything, he was anti-Nazi. He
> has never retracted them. On the contrary, he continues to defend his
> actions in the Faurisson affair (though there are certain statements he
> apparently prefers not to advertize). Compare those unambiguous declarative
> statements to his abstract and theoretical references to views that "you
> despise".
There's nothing abstract and theoretical about
it, considering he regularly adds that he thinks
people like Faurisson have abandoned their humanity,
calls their views utterly offensive, says there is
no rational basis for them (another line he repeats
frequently actually). Anyone who would describe
saying something to the effect of 'as far as I know
X is an apolitical liberal' (he didn't say he was
certain of it) as being high praise, and then claim
that saying 'such people as X have forsaken their
humanity', 'I despise X's views', X's views
are 'utterly offensive', as being relatively
weak and abstract in comparison, is just determined
to make a fool of himself.
Here, let me try this to put it in
perspective.
As far as I know, you, C. Kalina,
are an apolitical liberal, and you've obviously
done a lot of research on Chomsky. I believe
you have a right to publish your findings on
such matters. I believe you have a right to
publish them because I believe that freedom
of speech especially means freedom to publish
ideas I despise. Your ideas are easily
disproved and have no rational basis.
Nonetheless I would oppose seeing you
prosecuted for them, because I think that
even utterly offensive ideas should be
protected. Though I must remind everyone
again of what I have long ago written:
that anyone who even broaches such ideas
loses their humanity by doing so.
There. Feel complemented now? Feel
praised? Feel that this is an on-the-whole
positive appraisal of you and your
arguments? Because those very arguments
rest on the assumption that it is.
DG
cka...@capaccess.org
dr...@is4.nyu.edu (David Rolfe Graeber) wrote:
> cka...@capaccess.org wrote:
> > This is odd. Chomsky gives an evasive, legalistic answer -- and because
> > I point that fact out, I'm acting like a lawyer?
> His reply was in no way legalistic;
> only your utter determination to find some
> way to claim it might not say what it
> obviously is saying is legalistic. Take
> the example of Chomsky's "to even enter into a
> debate over whether the holocaust happened
> is to lose one's humanity" quote. You made
> the ridiculous claim that since this was in
> a different context where Chomsky was talking
> about other atrocities, it somehow doesn't
> apply to his opinion of Faurisson.
Strictly speaking, the original quote (in _New Mandarins_) didn't concern
the existence of atrocities. It concerned the ideology that lay behind these
atrocities -- the Nazi Holocaust, or by his analogy, American involvement
in Vietnam.
To pay these ideologies the compliment of a debate, he argued, was
dehumanizing because it gave the ideologies (and hence the atrocities)
legitimacy. It implied that reasonable people might differ over, say, the
scientific merits of Nazi race theory. We can refute it (and denounce it),
but we would not debate it.
The same can be said for Holocaust revisionism. That's precisely why the
revisionists say they want an "open debate". Such a debate would imply that
there was a "Holocaust question," with two equally legitimate sides, both of
whom were motivated by a search for the truth. Serious scholars of the
Holocaust refuse to debate them for precisely this reason.
So it's odd that Chomsky, contradicting his earlier argument in _New
Mandarins_, demanded that serious scholars engage in such a debate:
: For me, there exists no reasonable grounds to doubt the existence
: of the gas chambers. Then again, this should be based [?] on the facts
: and not on religious belief. Only a religious fanatic refuses to inquire
: into questions of facts.
(Chomsky, _Reponses Inedites_, 1984, my translation. The "?" follows
the phrase "Bien entendu, il s'agit," which my schoolboy French can't
precisely translate.)
Sounds reasonable: certainly, no rational person would argue that people
ought _not_ know the facts of the Holocaust (or anything else).
Problem is, nobody was making any such argument. It existed only as the
revisionists' straw man. It was part of their "open debate" strategy. They
have their own "facts" that they want people to know. They argue that these
facts refute the existence of the Holocaust. They believe that therefore
only irrational fanatics could affirm the existence of the Holocaust. They
believe that mainstream scholars refuse to debate them precisely because they
are afraid of a inquiry based on facts.
Again: the real reason scholars refuse to debate the revisionists is
precisely because the revisionists are _not_ concerned with the facts.
Revisionist "logic" falsifies genuine facts, while inventing whatever
non-facts it needs. To debate them would be to establish them as a
legitimate alternative body of scholarship
Yet Chomsky frames the debate in terms favored by the deniers, implying
that Faurisson is engaged in a fact-based inquiry, and that his critics are
replying with fanaticism instead of facts. Why?
Guillaume's answer is that Chomsky disagrees with Faurisson, this is only a
difference of opinion, and that Chomsky thinks Faurisson has a legitimate
perspective that deserves a hearing:
: Every time he [Chomsky] repeats that his opinions remain
: "diametrically opposed" to those of Faurisson, he does so in
: terms that have absolutely no possibility of injuring Faurisson,
: and he always indicates, by a word or a phrase, that his
: "diametrically opposed" opinion remains more in the realm of
: opinion than in that of scientific knowledge...
: Chomsky clearly signals that his present opinion (September-
: October 1981) neither has another basis nor has more than opinion
: and that therefore the inquiry was legitimate...
(Guillaume, _Droit et Histoire_, 1984, my translation)
Guillaume claims that Chomsky corrected and approved the text in which he
makes this claims. Of course, Guillaume is hardly a reliable source --
although Chomsky has never repudiated Guillaume's claim, even when directly
attacked for it.
At the very least, it's an example of the ways in which the Holocaust
denial movement has used his name and exploited the ambiguities of his
argument. If I am "lawyering" his comments in the movie, it's only because
I'm looking for a statement that is unambiguously damaging to Faurisson's
credibility, and which Guillaume therefore could not interpret as a
back-handed compliment.
> In fact,
> Chomsky has repeated this line almost
> every time he's asked his opinion on
> Faurisson's arguments, noting that he'd
> said it years before. Now, by your logic,
> apparently, the fact that he had noted
> he had said it years before means he's
> _not_ saying it now,
Let's stipulate that Chomsky's comment in the movie is a direct attack on
Faurisson. That still doesn't erase his earlier comments on Faurisson's
behalf. We need to resolve this discrepancy. One very plausible answer is
that Chomsky's comments in the movie are _not_ a direct on Faurisson; that
as Guillaume says, they are an indirect attack that does no real damage to
Faurisson's credibility.
[...]
> > Chomsky made simple, declarative statements in which he said that Robert
> > Faurisson was an "apolitial liberal". He defended Faurisson against the
> > charge of neo-Nazism, and insisted that if anything, he was anti-Nazi. He
> > has never retracted them. On the contrary, he continues to defend his
> > actions in the Faurisson affair (though there are certain statements he
> > apparently prefers not to advertize). Compare those unambiguous declarative
> > statements to his abstract and theoretical references to views that "you
> > despise".
> There's nothing abstract and theoretical about
> it, considering he regularly adds that he thinks
> people like Faurisson have abandoned their humanity,
> calls their views utterly offensive, says there is
> no rational basis for them (another line he repeats
> frequently actually).
Actually he said these things only in the movie. During the Faurisson
affair, he did continually affirm the existence of the Holocaust, and said
that his own views were "diametrically opposed" to those of Faurisson.
That's fine, but it's also irrelevant: nobody said that he himself was a
Holocaust denier. Nor do these statements seriously challenge Faurisson's
legitimacy, only his accuracy.
> Anyone who would describe
> saying something to the effect of 'as far as I know
> X is an apolitical liberal' (he didn't say he was
> certain of it) as being high praise,
Faurisson is a Holocaust denier. Such people are commonly accused of
having sinister intellectual and political motives. They are routinely
called anti-Semites and neo-Nazis. For such a man, the label "apolitical
liberal" is high praise indeed.
Again, the revisionists' immediate goal is not agreement, but legitimacy.
To call one an anti-semite and neo-Nazi clearly denies him intellectual and
political legitimacy. To specifically reject these accusations, and to say
instead that he is simply an "apolitical liberal", clearly grants him
legitimacy. Even if it's followed by the caveat that you don't happen to
agree with him.
What was his "apolitical liberal" description based upon? He said that he
could "find no evidence to support" the charges against Faurisson, He also
said that he knew little about Faurisson or his critics. So by his own
admission, his description of Faurisson was baseless; he found no evidence
because he made no effort to look for it.
The description was not only baseless: it was, as he himself noted,
completely unnecessary to a civil-liberties argument in principle. What's
more, Chomsky pledged earlier in the essay that he would not say anything
about Faurisson and his critics. Yet he ended the essay by doing precisely
this.
This is one example of Chomsky's typical doublespeak. That aside: why did
he bother saying this, when it could only weaken his argument? Each of his
critics seems to have a different theory. However, the fact remains that he
did say it, and it does not vanish down the memory hole simply because he
later made some comments that might be construed as a direct attack on
Faurisson.
> and then claim
> that saying 'such people as X have forsaken their
> humanity', 'I despise X's views', X's views
> are 'utterly offensive', as being relatively
> weak and abstract in comparison, is just determined
> to make a fool of himself.
Chomsky did not say "I despise Faurisson's views". He said that in
principle, it's important to defend freedom of speech even for views that
"you despise". You may _infer_ from this that he despises Faurisson's views.
But he did not say this about Faurisson specifically. Logically, if we
can't construe his civil-liberties argument as a defense of Faurisson
specifically, we cannot construe it as an _attack_ on Faurisson specifically.
Rather than responding to this argument, Mr. Graeber, you've ignored it,
and instead launched a personal attack on my integrity -- fabricating
evidence when you need it (e.g. Chomsky said "I despise Faurisson's views").
This is typical Chomskyana, but it leaves the basic problem of Chomsky's
argument unanswered.
[...]
> As far as I know, you, C. Kalina,
> are an apolitical liberal,
You can equally say that as far as you know, I'm a woman, a tap-dancer, or
a Swede. You know nothing about me, nor does it matter, if all you're doing
is defending my civil rights.
But it would be obvious nonsense for you to assert I _am_ any of these
things -- or for that matter, that I'm an apolitical liberal. We just
established that you know nothing about me. Therefore you have no grounds to
make any such assertion and you would be wrong (and mistaken) to do so.
(Saying "as far as I can determine" is utterly vacuous. The same phrase
can be applied to _any_ statement you make -- no matter how much evidence
you have, or how little.)
However, you _can_ describe me based upon the articles I have posted to
this forum. Do these articles seem, to you, to be the work of an "apolitical
liberal"? Can you seriously say that as far "as you can determine", this is
what I am? If so, then you either have some bizarre idiosyncratic definition
of these words, or you haven't even read my articles. If the latter, then
you have no grounds to offer any description at all.
Similarly: I am neither Faurisson's psychoanalyst nor his confessor.
Whether he is an anti-Semite in the depths of his heart, I cannot possibly
say. But his work rests on the assumption that all Jews act together for
sinister ends that are specifically Jewish. That is clearly an anti-Semitic
assumption, and since his theory requires it, his theory is anti-Semitic. So
from his theory, I can conclude that he's an anti-Semite. (And from the
specific object of its application, I can infer some sympathy for Nazism.)
Chomsky should have reached the same conclusion about Faurisson's theory.
Or he could have said he simply didn't know enough about Faurisson to make a
public comment. Instead, he offered a public comment on a matter of which he
was evidently ignorant -- a comment that, to say the least, false.
[...]
> There. Feel complemented now? Feel
> praised? Feel that this is an on-the-whole
> positive appraisal of you and your
> arguments? Because those very arguments
> rest on the assumption that it is.
Compared to what other people have said about me? Absolutely it is a
compliment. And if most people considered me a neo-Nazi or anti-Semite, it
would be even more of a compliment.
David Rolfe Graeber
> In article <6rt4du$5id$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
> dr...@is4.nyu.edu (David Rolfe Graeber) wrote:
> > There's nothing abstract and theoretical about
> > it, considering he regularly adds that he thinks
> > people like Faurisson have abandoned their humanity,
> > calls their views utterly offensive, says there is
> > no rational basis for them (another line he repeats
> > frequently actually).
C.Kalina replied:
> Actually he said these things only in the movie.
I now reply:
At this point, I am really forced to the
conclusion that you are simply a calculating
liar - and a pretty poor one, considering your
statement above ("Chomsky made those statements
only in the movie") can be easily shown to be
false. First of all, it's false by definition,
since the quotes from the movie are in fact
clippings of several separate occasions when
Chomsky was asked about Faurisson during public
events. But let's say you are claiming that he
only said them in those particular public
events. Well, how about the "lose your
humanity" quote, for starters? Here's
a quote from a letter Chomsky sent to the
Canadian journal "Outlook" in response to
Werner Cohn:
"[Cohn says] I have always defended
freedom on expression 'in terms that are
absolutely incapable of hurting Faurrison
[sic].' ... In my own writings, from the
earliest until the present, the conclusions of
standard Holocaust studies are taken simply
as established fact, as Cohn knows
perfectly well. In the introduction to my
firt collection of political essays, 20
years ago, I add that we have lost our
humanity if we are even willing to enter
into debate over the Nazi crimes with
those who deny or defend them." (In Milan
Rai, Chomsky's Politics, Verso 1995, p202-3).
So there you are. You claim he only
said it in the movie. You said it with
absolute auithority and certainty. Your claim
is utterly false. In fact, those I know
who have seen Chomsky speak report that
this is his standard response to questions
about Faurisson. As for the "no rational
basis" quote, I refer to the very same
letter, "there are no rational grounds
that allow any doubt about the existence
of gas chambers." Once again, easily
documentable proof that your claims are
false.
There are only two possibilities
here:
(a) while your entire
argument rests on claims about what
Chomsky has _not_ said, you in fact
have next to no idea what Chomsky
actually has said and are just
making stuff up
(b) you know your statements
are false but make them anyway
Either way, once you start
with such blatant falsehoods, there's
no reason to take anything else you
say seriously either. I don't have
time to proceed through your lengthy
posts and see what other statements
are equally false (I have courses to
prepare) but why bother? Anyone who
resorts to lies - particularly anyone
who resorts to lies to defame
someone else's character, which is
your entire project - no longer
deserves serious attention.
Oh, one thing I forgot to
add to the Chomsky paraphrase:
While you resort to a style
of argument perfected by Nazis and
use it to smear the name of a
prominent Jewish intellectual, I should
emphasize that it is possible to do
this without, oneself, being a Nazi
or an anti-Semite. Indeed, I have
seen no evidence that C. Kalina is
himself an anti-Semite or a Nazi.
DG
Hunter H. Watson
<cfa...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
Chris Faatz's post immediately below remains on my reader buy my
subsequent reply is gone. I append it
to this post. Gremlins I suppose.
H.W.
> Comrade Anarchist Dan has done a bang-up job of devastating Werner's major
> conclusions in his book. Reading the back cover is almost enough to draw
> the correct conclusion about the book: "When Noam Chomsky came to the
> defense of the French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson, he astonished
> friends and enemies alike. Chomsky has vigorously defended his acction as
> being noting more than the protection of an individual's civil liberties,
> quite unconnected with that individual's views and writings. Werner Cohn,
> in this meticulously documented study, shows that Chomsky's defense of
> Faurisson is much more than that, and indeed, that it is connected to some
> of Chomsky's deepest political orientations, *in particular his unwavering
> animus toward the United States and Israel.* In doing so, he sheds
> surprising light on Chomsky's politics." [my emphasis]
>
> This is a blurb by Nathan Glazer, a reknowned neo-conservative
> intellectual and an unquestioning supporter of the Israeli state. As the
> emphasized segment implies, the whole gist of the thing is to argue that
> Chomsky is, in effect, an anti-semite due to his opposition to Zionism.
>
> The Faurisson debacle was, as far as this bookseller of fifteen years and
> maniacal first amendment absolutist can tell from all available evidence,
> exactly as Chomsky put it: a defense of the right to publish one's
> thoughts. Well in the tradition of Voltaire and the Western liberalism
> (in the broad sense) that Werner--and Hunter--are so unabashedly proud of.
>
> A few more quotes, just from the first couple pages:
>
> "I have tried to find references in the NYT to Chomsky's neo-Nazi
> involvements and could find only two items, out of the over one hundred
> deveoted tohim, that allude to this side of his activities. The story is
> quite different in France where Le Monde and other publications regularly
> refer to Chomsky's relationship to the French neo-Nazi propaganist Robert
> Faurisson." Citations are nonexistent in this "meticulously documented
> study" to prove the above assertions.
>
> Again, from the intro:
>
> "The [Holocaust denying) Institute for Historical Review's publishing and
> bookselling arm is called Noontide Press. Holocaust-denying is only one
> part of the antisemitic menu of this supermarket of Nazism. The latest NP
> catalog is dated 1995. Among its offerings we find Nazi-made mvies that
> are banned in Germany because of their brazen propaganda, as well as the
> notorious _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, books by Adolf Hitler and
> Joseph Goebbels, a book by the late Father Coughlin, and the infamous _The
> International Jew_ by Henry Ford. Chomsky is represented by five different
> items.... Chomsky, according to the IHR, 'enlightens as no other writer on
> Israel, Zionism, and American complicity."
>
> IHR, at least up until a recent split and family feud, was owned by Willis
> Carto, publisher of the Spotlight, the US' largest circulation
> anti-semitic/fascist-oriented newspaper. However, despite all this,
> Chomsky's inclusion in NP's catalog *does not* tie Chomsky in any way to
> an anti-semitic conspiracy or the neo-Nazi movement in general. It's
> tantamount to saying that because James P. Cannon said, at his trial for
> conspiracy, that he'd read _Mein Kampf_, ergo, he was a fascist. This is
> guilt by association, mud-smearing, about as loathsome a practice one can
> find.
>
> Hunter and Werner, I respect both of you, but I condemn this kind of
> behavior from the bottom of my heart. Werner, I understand your love of
> Israel and passionate Zionism, but to use innuendo to smear a prominent
> anti-Zionist is beneath you. You may be opposed to anti-Zionism, but
> I implore you to use the tools of reason rather than blacklisting to
> put forward your positions.
>
> Hunter, your misplaced patriotism, as reflected in your support of the
> CIA, a *truly* criminal organization, etc., doesn't hide the fact that
> your positions arise out of a horror for a mass politics that demolishes
> the individual and his/her rights and being, and that you believe that the
> US is the best defense of this in the world's history. However, the very
> rule of law that you uphold so virogously is tarnished mightily by your
> enthusiastic support of stuff like this (or of the School for the
> Americas, or the CIA, etc., etc.)
>
> How can you support this stuff? I just don't get it. I'm not a Chomsky
> fan--I find his stuff indigestible--but this is thoroughly beyond the pale
> and thoroughly mystifying.
>
> On the other hand, this gentleman's assertion:
>
> : "Hziulquoigmnzhah" (hziulquo...@cykranosh.com) wrote:
>
> : > Iqhui dlosh odhqlonqh!
>
> I support wholeheartedly, and it's my ardent belieft that Lovecraft has
> had the last word in this discussion.
Subject:
Re: Peerless In Shite: The Not-So-Hidden
Inanities of Werner
Cohn
Date:
Sat, 22 Aug 1998 03:57:18 -0500
From:
hwa...@mail.portup.com (Hunter H. Watson)
Organization:
Committee for the Rehabilitation of Socialism
To:
hwa...@portup.com
Newsgroups:
alt.fan.noam-chomsky,
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,
alt.fan.dan-quayle
References:
1 , 2
In article <QYWC1.23118$MV.16...@news.teleport.com>, Chris Faatz
<cfa...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
Hunter Watson
>
> C
Hunter H. Watson
<cfa...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
This too is a repost of a reply to Faatz which has disappeared from my
reader though his original remains. Gremlins I suppose.
Subject:
Re: Peerless In Shite: The Not-So-Hidden
Inanities of Werner
Cohn
Date:
Sat, 22 Aug 1998 02:55:21 -0500
From:
hwa...@mail.portup.com (Hunter H. Watson)
Organization:
Committee for the Rehabilitation of Socialism
To:
hwa...@portup.com
Newsgroups:
alt.fan.noam-chomsky,
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,
alt.fan.dan-quayle
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4
In article <e4gD1.23937$MV.17...@news.teleport.com>, Chris Faatz
<cfa...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
> In alt.politics.socialism.trotsky David Graeber
<dr...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
> : It seems to me the most elementary
> : principle of intellectual integrity that, if one
> : wishes to know someone's opinion on a question
> : like this, one asks them.
Well, certainly one will seek that testimony and take it into
consideration. But the credibility of the witness is always an issue. And
recognizing that it is an issue is a part of ensuring the intellectual
integrity of the inquiry.
This has been done
> : a thousand times with Chomsky and always he
> : says the same thing: he believes supporting
> : freedom of speech means first and foremost
> : supporting freedom to say the things one hates
> : and that's what he's doing with the
> : holocaust deniers.
>
> Amen, and well said!
Not quite, Chris. Will you apply this standard to everyone? If an accused
denies the crime does he thereby go free? Were that the rule there would
be few convictions. Yet most who are charged are convicted. No, his
credibility will be tested by a jury of his peers. Cohn is one of
Chomsky's jurors.
>
Hunter H. Watson
> Personally I do not agree with Cohn's thesis. As I've already said, I
> think his essay makes a good point badly. However, Chomsky has made equally
> serious accusations against others, based on far less evidence (to include
> his accusations against Faurisson's critics). So it is, if not a fair
> accusation, then at least fair play.
If Cohn's thesis is false how can he be making a good point? If his thesis
is false nothing previously done by Chomsky could justify his publishing
it. Why in particular do you disagree with his thesis? Wouldn't it be
better, if you are correct and Cohn's thesis is wrong, for you to simply
to *explain why* and then to address the Chomsky issue independently? You
appear to actually accept Cohn's analysis but not to want to associate
yourself with it for some reason.
H.W.
David Rolfe Graeber
>
> Let us return to the central point:
You must really think I'm a sucker.
No, Kalina. You lied. You got caught
in a blatant lie. Actually my impression is
your work is full of lies, but that one was
so obvious it could be easily exposed.
Do you really think that after I have
proved to all the world that you are
standing up here lying your head off I'm
going to go on debating with you as if
anything you say can be believed? When you
tell blatant lies ("Chomsky never said X",
"Chomsky only said X in the movie"...)
to smear someone else's name, you no
longer have any moral authority to
tell anybody anything.
I did not read the rest of your
post - in what little I glanced at,
you appear to be playing the exact same
dishonest game, taking what was clearly
an excerpt from a longer Chomsky quote
and accusing him of lying for what he
_didn't_ say, despite the fact you again
have no idea what he didn't say because
you never looked up the reference I
provided to examine the full text. I
suggest if you want to debate Chomsky,
you get the full text, type it out,
and then play your stupid little games
with it because I don't debate with
liars.
You lose.
DG
Chris Faatz
him politically, I retract it. Ironically, I have more respect for his
integrity than I do that of many people on this ng (apst), even when I
disagree with his politics (as is quite clear, I think).
And, I'll re-read Werner's book. If I feel I've made an error, I'll
return and say so. If not, ditto. Sorry for taking so long--I pay far
too little attention to some threads, and far too much to others (such
as the discussion around "Communist University.")
Chris Faatz
Louis N Proyect
> Hunter takes me to task for many things. If I've been unfair in labelling
> him politically, I retract it. Ironically, I have more respect for his
> integrity than I do that of many people on this ng (apst), even when I
> disagree with his politics (as is quite clear, I think).
>
What does integrity mean to you? Defending the right of contras to murder
unarmed citizens of Nicaragua? Don't you realize that this constitutes a
war-crime? What kind of "socialist" are you? Is your Stalinophobia so
severe that you have more respect for scum like Watson than you do for
socialists? Well, if you want to bat your eyelashes at him and cater to
his anti-Soviet lies, then go ahead. The rest of us have no intention of
wasting our time defending the Russian Revolution to him. We are more
interested in attacking capitalism. Capitalism, you remember what that is,
don't you? It's what causes millions of children to die of diahrrea in
Latin America before the age of three because multinationals deprive them
of a chance at life. You are disgusting, Faatz.
Louis P.
redflag
The question is what kind of socialist are _you_, Proyect?
--
"Nowadays, atheism is itself *culpa levis*, as compared
with criticism of existing property relations."
Access The People on-line by using our
gopher on the Internet at gopher://gopher.slp.org:7019/
Access our web page at http://www.slp.org
Louis N Proyect
>
> The question is what kind of socialist are _you_, Proyect?
I am very close to the Monthly Review.
Louis P.
Hunter H. Watson
<Pine.GSO.3.95qL.98082...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu>, Louis
N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Chris Faatz wrote:
>
> > Hunter takes me to task for many things. If I've been unfair in labelling
> > him politically, I retract it. Ironically, I have more respect for his
> > integrity than I do that of many people on this ng (apst), even when I
> > disagree with his politics (as is quite clear, I think).
> >
>
> What does integrity mean to you? Defending the right of contras to murder
> unarmed citizens of Nicaragua?
Proyect's level of integrity is apparent in this first statement. He
speaks of me. He knows I have never said such a thing.
His leit motif is slander, the conscious utterance of defamatory falsehoods.
Don't you realize that this constitutes a
> war-crime?
Of course it's a war crime. The question is whether Watson defended the
right of contras to murder unarmed citizens of Nicaragua. And of course he
hasn't and Proyect knows it as he was involved in the conversations in
question.
>What kind of "socialist" are you?
Apparently, one who is independent, truthful, and well read to boot. They
are not popular in this cess-pool.
Is your Stalinophobia so
> severe that you have more respect for scum like Watson than you do for
> socialists?
What a sentence! Democratic centralism is a higher value than human life
for this "socialist".
Well, if you want to bat your eyelashes at him and cater to
> his anti-Soviet lies, then go ahead.
More integrity on display. One only needs to quote professional historians
on Soviet history to be accused by Proyect of indulging anti-Soviet lies.
And imagine thinking of "anti-Soviet" as an epithet! What a perverted
sense of values.
The rest of us have no intention of
> wasting our time defending the Russian Revolution to him.
My, my, Communists struck dumb on of all subjects, the Russian Revolution.
And all it takes is a couple of walls of books. Truth and Memory were the
first victims of the regime. They now want to attack "capitalism" but
can't bear to think of their past. Nothing changes on the lunatic Left.
We are more
> interested in attacking capitalism.
Dream on, Proyect. You're not attacking anything. You're a bitter relic of
a genocidal tradition. Your past is your future. You will flail, froth and
croak -- in complete obscurity.
Capitalism, you remember what that is,
> don't you? It's what causes millions of children to die of diahrrea in
> Latin America before the age of three because multinationals deprive them
> of a chance at life.
If this candor challenged style of argument is as I believe it to be
characteristic of Communists, the vast majority of socialists need to
distance themselves from it somehow.
> You are disgusting, Faatz.
We are known by the quality of our enemies.
Hunter Watson
redflag
> We are more
> > interested in attacking capitalism.
>
> Dream on, Proyect. You're not attacking anything. You're a bitter relic of
> a genocidal tradition. Your past is your future. You will flail, froth and
> croak -- in complete obscurity.
>
You left out _sterility_ and _impotence_.
Hunter H. Watson
<Pine.GSO.3.95qL.9808...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu>,
Louis N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Hunter H. Watson wrote:
>
> > Did you know, Louis, that you are a "Type I"? Just ignore the gender in
> > the passage and think of yourself back in college:
> >
> > "Miss A seemed driven by hostility. The general targets of her hatred were
> > "the System" and "the capitalist class." Her specific targets were the
>
> I love being flattered. Thank you.
>
> Louis P.
That you feel flattered to have your pathological characteristics pointed
out confirms the diagnosis. We simply wish to ensure you an *opportunity*
for reflection and personal salvation (in the secular sense of course).
Kraditor traces that pathology to isolation and suicide. (See "Jimmy
Higgens", pp. 44-45)
H.W.
Louis N Proyect
> and you've refused to provide me with the evidence. I guess we can
> consider this conversation ended, Herr Proyect.
If the conversation is ended, why do you take sides in redflag's question
of what kind of socialist I am. I was all set to let things drop.
By the way, I want to thank you for referring to me as "Herr" Proyect
after I already told apst that I lost numerous relatives at Auschwitz.
I note that you refer to me as some kind of Nazi after a real Nazi begins
referring to me as a Red Fascist.
I was convinced that beneath all your insufferable fake piety and all the
<g's> that you stick in your posts, there is a genuine animosity toward
people who take their Marxism seriously. And this toxic little dig you
made shows the real Faatz behind the Buddhist/Jesus blandness.
You expressed shock and dismay at Vigliemo's holocaust denial. "Marc, how
could you?!" So where have you been for the past four years or so.
Everybody else but you has him nailed down pretty good, just as they have
Watson nailed down. Your shock reminds me of the shock expressed by Claud
Rains when he raids Rick's hotel in Casablanca. "I can't believe there's
still gambling going on here after all the warnings I've given you."
Louis P.
Chris Faatz
: > and you've refused to provide me with the evidence. I guess we can
: > consider this conversation ended, Herr Proyect.
: If the conversation is ended, why do you take sides in redflag's question
: of what kind of socialist I am. I was all set to let things drop.
I was thanking Chris for supporting me. I know what kind of socialist you
are, and I've told you privately and publicly that I respect your poltics.
And your commitment. Big deal.
: By the way, I want to thank you for referring to me as "Herr" Proyect
: after I already told apst that I lost numerous relatives at Auschwitz.
: I note that you refer to me as some kind of Nazi after a real Nazi begins
: referring to me as a Red Fascist.
Well, I didn't know about your relatives at Auschwitz. As I've told you,
I skip most of your posts. I'm sorry for your losses, and I'm in
solidarity (fwiw) with your anti-fascist struggles.
I don't believe, with Goldhagen, that all Germans were genocidal, though.
Sorry. Calling you Herr did not implicate you as a Nazi unless you're
willing to brand a nation.
Shit, Louis, you could be a "Herr," and be a supporter of the Whtie Rose,
the Trot underground, a Quaker--any number of things. *Including a German
Jew.*
: I was convinced that beneath all your insufferable fake piety and all the
: <g's> that you stick in your posts, there is a genuine animosity toward
: people who take their Marxism seriously. And this toxic little dig you
: made shows the real Faatz behind the Buddhist/Jesus blandness.
Huh. Imagine.
: You expressed shock and dismay at Vigliemo's holocaust denial. "Marc, how
: could you?!" So where have you been for the past four years or so.
: Everybody else but you has him nailed down pretty good, just as they have
: Watson nailed down. Your shock reminds me of the shock expressed by Claud
: Rains when he raids Rick's hotel in Casablanca. "I can't believe there's
: still gambling going on here after all the warnings I've given you."
Good movie, wrong call.
I defended Marc up until the point where I was convinced he was leaning
towards fascist tendencies through his suppot for the more virulent wings
of the NOI. This (first that I've seen) explicitly-revisionist post
convinces me that he's not leaning anymore.
Like I said, Lou, again, both privately and publicly. I'll give someone
the benefit of the doubt until they prove me wrong. It's a character
weakness, and a human obligation.
Hunter, I don't know about type I or II. It's my reading that Lou's anger
comes out of a great horror at the world and is sincere in that, and that
there's also a huge well of hurt at the bottom of it all.
Okay, enough.
Chris
Louis N Proyect
> Shit, Louis, you could be a "Herr," and be a supporter of the Whtie Rose,
> the Trot underground, a Quaker--any number of things. *Including a German
> Jew.*
Oh, I see <g>. I reminded you of a Quaker <g>. Not only that, it might
have been your way of characterizing me as a Jew from Germany <g>,
although that is touchy subject because all the Jews got killed. All of
them. ;-)
Jesus loves you,
Louis
Louis N Proyect
> I don't believe, with Goldhagen, that all Germans were genocidal, though.
> Sorry. Calling you Herr did not implicate you as a Nazi unless you're
> willing to brand a nation.
>
> Shit, Louis, you could be a "Herr," and be a supporter of the Whtie Rose,
> the Trot underground, a Quaker--any number of things. *Including a German
> Jew.*
God, you are such a phoney <g>. People don't pick words like Herr out of
the blue. <g> Quakers are not called Herr. <g> They are called brother or
sister. <g> What you were trying to say, but don't have the guts to back
up when called upon it, is that you regard me as a Red Fascist, to use
Gardner and Vigliemo's words. <g> Some Buddhist. Some Christian. You are
the biggest fake on the face of the planet.
Louis P. <g>
Hunter H. Watson
<cfa...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
> Louis N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> : On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Chris Faatz wrote:
>
> : > and you've refused to provide me with the evidence. I guess we can
> : > consider this conversation ended, Herr Proyect.
>
> : If the conversation is ended, why do you take sides in redflag's question
> : of what kind of socialist I am. I was all set to let things drop.
>
> I was thanking Chris for supporting me. I know what kind of socialist you
> are, and I've told you privately and publicly that I respect your poltics.
> And your commitment. Big deal.
>
> : By the way, I want to thank you for referring to me as "Herr" Proyect
> : after I already told apst that I lost numerous relatives at Auschwitz.
> : I note that you refer to me as some kind of Nazi after a real Nazi begins
> : referring to me as a Red Fascist.
>
> Well, I didn't know about your relatives at Auschwitz. As I've told you,
> I skip most of your posts. I'm sorry for your losses, and I'm in
> solidarity (fwiw) with your anti-fascist struggles.
>
> I don't believe, with Goldhagen, that all Germans were genocidal, though.
> Sorry. Calling you Herr did not implicate you as a Nazi unless you're
> willing to brand a nation.
>
> Shit, Louis, you could be a "Herr," and be a supporter of the Whtie Rose,
> the Trot underground, a Quaker--any number of things. *Including a German
> Jew.*
>
> : I was convinced that beneath all your insufferable fake piety and all the
> : <g's> that you stick in your posts, there is a genuine animosity toward
> : people who take their Marxism seriously. And this toxic little dig you
> : made shows the real Faatz behind the Buddhist/Jesus blandness.
>
> Huh. Imagine.
>
> : You expressed shock and dismay at Vigliemo's holocaust denial. "Marc, how
> : could you?!" So where have you been for the past four years or so.
> : Everybody else but you has him nailed down pretty good, just as they have
> : Watson nailed down. Your shock reminds me of the shock expressed by Claud
> : Rains when he raids Rick's hotel in Casablanca. "I can't believe there's
> : still gambling going on here after all the warnings I've given you."
>
> Good movie, wrong call.
>
> I defended Marc up until the point where I was convinced he was leaning
> towards fascist tendencies through his suppot for the more virulent wings
> of the NOI. This (first that I've seen) explicitly-revisionist post
> convinces me that he's not leaning anymore.
>
> Like I said, Lou, again, both privately and publicly. I'll give someone
> the benefit of the doubt until they prove me wrong. It's a character
> weakness, and a human obligation.
>
> Hunter, I don't know about type I or II. It's my reading that Lou's anger
> comes out of a great horror at the world and is sincere in that, and that
> there's also a huge well of hurt at the bottom of it all.
>
> Okay, enough.
>
> Chris
Yes, certainly, enough.
Hunter
Chris Faatz
: One thing is certain, indeed. Proyect is no German. We've seen him attempt
: to use the language. As to the Red Fascist thing, there is a lot to be
: said about the convergence of the two systems. No one need apologize for
: raising the issue. Arendt, a Jew, wrote the definitive study. Among the
: relevant scholars today few reject this reality. Those who do usually
: inhabit one or the other of the tendencies seeking rehabilitation.
Another thing: poor Louis, despite his erudition, really doesn't know
anything about Quakers. They actually don't call one another Brother and
Sister, they call(ed) one another "Friend," because Jesus allegedly said
"I shall call you friends." And, today the certainly call one another
Herr--and mister, and grazhdanin, and etc.
Oh well.
Louis N Proyect
> Another thing: poor Louis, despite his erudition, really doesn't know
> anything about Quakers. They actually don't call one another Brother and
> Sister, they call(ed) one another "Friend," because Jesus allegedly said
> "I shall call you friends." And, today the certainly call one another
> Herr--and mister, and grazhdanin, and etc.
>
> Oh well.
I stand corrected. I was so upset by your phoney religious bullshit
yesterday that it slipped my mind completely.
---
Archbishop: A Christian ecclesiastic of a rank superior to that attained
by Christ.
Church: A place in which gentlemen who have never been to Heaven brag
about it to people who will never get there.
Clergyman: A ticket speculator outside the gates of Heaven.
Conscience: The inner voice which warns us that someone is looking.
Creator: A comedian whose audience is afraid to laugh.
Evil: That which one believes of others. It is a sin to believe evil of
others, but it is seldom a mistake.
Idealist: One who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage,
concludes that it will also make better soup.
Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time.
Morality: The theory that every human act must either be right or wrong,
and that 99% of them are wrong.
Pastor: One employed by the wicked to prove to them by his example that
virtue doesn't pay.
Platitude: An idea (a) that is admitted to be true by everyone, and (b)
that is not true.
Sunday: A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves were
dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in Hell.
Sunday School: A prison in which children do penance for the evil
conscience of their parents.
H.L. Mencken
Louis N Proyect
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of
the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or
never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere
ass: he is actually ill."
"Puritanism- The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
"The acting that one sees upon the stage does not show how human beings
comport themselves in crises, but how actors think they ought to. It is
thus, like poetry and religion, a device for gladdening the heart with
what is palpably not true."
"The liberation of the human mind has never been furthered by dunderheads;
it has been furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries
and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all
men that doubt, after all, was safe--that the god in the sanctuary was
finite in his power and hence a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten
thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more
intelligent."
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration-
courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the
truth."
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to
the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his
children smart."
"What is the function that a clergyman performs in the world? Answer: he
gets his living by assuring idiots that he can save them from an imaginary
hell."
"The cosmos is a gigantic fly wheel making 10,000 revolutions a minute.
Man is a sick fly taking a dizzy ride on it. Religion is the theory that
the wheel was designed and set spinning to give him the ride."
"Men become civilized not in proportion to their willingness to believe
but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
Chris Faatz
Chris Faatz
best things he ever wrote. What a mind, even if he was on the wrong
side....
Louis N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu> wrote:
: Quotes from Not Church member H.L. Mencken
--
Louis N Proyect
> An even better list! His account of the Scopes Monkey Trial is one of the
> best things he ever wrote. What a mind, even if he was on the wrong
> side....
You mean that your uncle is a monkey? I have to admit, you might have a
point there.
Louis P.
Hunter H. Watson
<Pine.GSO.3.95qL.9808...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu>, Louis
N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu> wrote:
Well there you are, Chris. One insult after another, all on the altar of
Marxist/Leninist anti-religious fanaticism.
Nothing changes. Under Lenin and his close colleagues, "The Communists
attacked religious beliefs and practices with a vehemence not seen since
the days of the Roman Empire. Their aggressive atheism affected the mass
of citizens far more painfully than the suppression of political dissent
or the imposition of censorship. Next to the economic hardships, no
action of Lenin's government brought greater suffering to the population
at large, the so-called 'masses,' than the profanation of its religious
beliefs, the closing of the houses of worship, and the mistreatment of the
clergy. Although . . . . Orthodox Christianity bore the brunt of Communist
persecution, Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam were not spared." (See
Chapter 7, "The Assault on Religion" in Professor Pipes' "Russia Under the
Bolshevik Regime". The photographs alone are worth finding the book: Red
Army troops desecrating the Simonov Monastery in Moscow in 1925;
Metropolitan Benjamen in the dock; primitives inventorying ancient
artifacts confiscated from churches in 1922; a scene from the anti-Semitic
play "Heder" featuring the term 'Kosher' painted on actors' backsides; a
huge pile of Torah scrolls from desecrated synagogues, etc.
Hunter H. Watson
<cfa...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
> Lovely list. Is it Bierce?
Yes, though Louis The Erudite cited it as Pierce. By the way both Bierce
and Menken specialized in comedy. It was similar in type if not in quality
to that indulged by Louis. You will recall the charming image involving
pork chop sandwiches being consumed in Jewish graveyards--and his decision
not to be a Jew implemented by ceasing to attend the Synagogue.
Hunter Watson
Louis N Proyect
> Nothing changes. Under Lenin and his close colleagues, "The Communists
> attacked religious beliefs and practices with a vehemence not seen since
> the days of the Roman Empire. Their aggressive atheism affected the mass
FATHER RUTILIO GRANDE
"The murder of one of the seventy-two, Father Rutilio Grande, was an
important landmark in the escalation of violence in El Salvador... Rutilio
Grande was shot to death, along with a teenager and a seventy-two-year-old
peasant, while on his way to Mass on March 12, 1977."
Archbishop Oscar Arnolfo Romero "...wrote to the president of El Salvador,
Arturo Armando Molina, urging a thorough investigation, which was
promised. A week later, the church having established that it was probably
police bullets that had killed the three victims, Romero wrote a harsher
letter to Molina..." Still the government did nothing. "With continued
inaction, Romero threatened to refuse church participation in any official
government event unless the murders were investigated and the killers
brought to justice." There was still almost no response from the
Salvadoran government. The bodies had not been exhumed. The bullets used
in the murders were still in the graves. Archbishop Romero and the clergy
"... finally decided to take dramatic action: temporary school closings,
and implementation of the previously mentioned threat to refuse to support
the government and other power groups on official occasions."
"This entire package of murder and church response was hardly lacking in
drama and newsworthiness. Yet murder, the confrontation of the desperate
church with a repressive state, and the dramatic acts carried out to try
to mobilize support in its self-defense were subject to a virtual blackout
in the U.S. mass media... This [lack of media coverage] was important in
allowing the terror to go on unimpeded."
ARCHBISHOP OSCAR ROMERO
At the time of his murder, Archbishop Oscar Romero "...had become the
foremost and most outspoken critic of the policy of repression by murder
being carried out by the U.S.-supported military government. In his last
sermon, he appealed to members of the army and security forces to refuse
to kill their Salvadoran brethren, a call that enraged the officer corps
trying to build a lower-class military that was willing to kill freely."
A few weeks before his murder, Romero "...had written a forceful letter to
President Jimmy Carter opposing the imminent granting of U.S. aid to the
junta as destructive of Salvadoran interests. The Carter administration
had been so disturbed by Romero's opposition to its policies that it had
secretly lobbied the pope to curb the archbishop."
Romero's opposition to U.S. policy in El Salvador qualified him for the
status of "unworthy victim," i.e. unworthy of serious media attention in
the United States. The U.S. media's news coverage of the archbishop's
murder and its follow-up reached "...new levels of dishonesty and
propaganda service in their coverage of this and related events."
From the New York Times, March 25, 1980: Archbishop Romero was killed by a
sniper who got out of a red car, apparently stood just inside the door of
the Chapel of the Divine Providence Hospital, fired a single shot at the
prelate and fled. The bullet struck the archbishop in the heart, according
to a doctor at the hospital where the prelate was taken. [There was no
arrest or trial].
The U.S. media has tried to paint a picture of El Salvador as having a
centrist government with the killing being done by extremists of the right
and the left. It has tended to rely heavily on official U.S. sources for
its information. One of these official sources, John Bushnell, of the
State Department, "...stated before a house appropriations committee that
'there is some misperception by those who follow the press that the
government is itself repressive in El Salvador,' when in fact the violence
is 'from the extreme right and the extreme left' and 'the smallest part'
of the killings come from the army and security forces. This statement was
a knowing lie, contradicted by all independent evidence coming out of El
Salvador and refuted by Archbishop Romero [before his murder] on an almost
daily basis."
Even though this official source was clearly in error, the U.S. mass media
"...followed the Bushnell formula virtually without deviation: there was a
'civil war between extreme right and leftist groups' (New York Times, Feb.
25, 1980); the 'seemingly well meaning but weak junta' was engaging in
reforms but was unable to check the terror (Time, Apr. 7, 1980)."
And the Salvadoran government has continued to be "moderate" and
"centrist" up to today [according to the U.S. media].
"At Archbishop Romero's funeral, on March 30, 1980, where many thousands
gathered to pay tribute, bomb explosions and gunfire killed some forty
people and injured hundreds more. The version of the event provided by
U.S. Ambassador Robert White and the Salvadoran government was that 'armed
terrorists of the ultra left sowed panic among the masses and did all they
could to provoke the security forces into returning fire. But the
discipline of the armed forces held."
"However, a mimeographed statement on March 30, signed by twenty- two
church leaders present at the funeral, claimed that the panic had been
started by a bomb thrown from the national palace, followed by machine-gun
and other shots coming from its second floor. This account was
suppressed... and was never mentioned in the New York Times."
"The assassins of Archbishop Romero were never 'officially' discovered or
prosecuted, and he joined the ranks of the tens of thousands of other
Salvadorans murdered without justice being done."
Subsequent to the murder of Archbishop Romero, "...a great deal of
evidence became available showing that Roberto D'Aubuisson was at the
center of a conspiracy to murder Romero. On the basis of numerous
interviews with Arena party activists and U.S. officials, and examination
of State Department cables, investigative reporters Craig Pyes and Laurie
Becklund claimed in 1983 that D'Aubuisson had planned the assassination
with a group of active-duty military officers, who drew straws for the
honor of carrying out the murder."
There was "...substantial evidence concerning the identity of Romero's
murderers, and there were significant links of the murders to the highest
officials of the Salvadoran military establishment."
The accumulating evidence of high-level involvement in the murder was not
given significant attention by the U.S. media. "It was back-page material
at best, treated matter-of-factly and never put in a framework of
indignation and outrage by the use of emotive language or by asking allies
of Romero to comment on the evidence, and it never elicited strident
demands for justice. To this day one will find no mention of the fact that
the effective rulers of this 'fledgling democracy' are military officers
who were closely associated with D'Aubuisson and his cabal and may well
have been implicated in the assassination."
Consistently, the U.S. media has adopted the "...central myth contrived by
the government, and contrived its reporting and interpretation to its
basic premises: the 'moderate government' that we support is plagued by
the terrorism of the extremists of the left and right, and is unable to
bring it under control. The U.S. government and the media understood very
well that the violence was overwhelmingly the responsibility of both the
U.S.- backed security forces, which were, and remain, the real power in
the country, and the paramilitary network they created to terrorize the
population. But this truth was inexpressible. To this day the media
maintain the central myth of earlier years, long after having conceded
quietly that it was a complete fabrication."
MURDER OF THE FOUR U.S. CHURCHWOMEN
Witnesses who found the grave said it was about five feet deep. One woman
had been shot in the face, another in the breast. Two of the women were
found with their blood-stained underpants around their ankles (Dec. 5,
1980).
"On December 2, 1980, four U.S. churchwomen working in El Salvador --
Maura Clarke, Jean Donovan, Ita Ford, and Dorothy Kazel -- were seized,
raped, and murdered by members of the Salvadoran National Guard. This
crime was extremely inconvenient to the Carter administration, which was
supporting the Salvadoran junta as an alleged 'reformist' government and
trying to convince the public and Congress that that government was worthy
of aid."
"A commission headed by William P. Rogers was quickly sent to El Salvador
to inquire into the facts... The commission reported that it had 'no
evidence suggesting that any senior Salvadoran authorities were implicated
in the murders themselves,' but there is no indication that it ascertained
this by any route beyond asking the authorities whether they were
involved... [The commission] proposed no independent investigation, merely
urging the Salvadoran junta to pursue the case vigorously. It noted that
the junta promised that the truth 'would be pursued wherever it led
anywhere in the country at any level.'"
"With the arrival of the Reagan administration, the already badly
compromised concern to find the culprits diminished further...[The new
Secretary of State] Alexander Haig stated before the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs that the evidence 'led one to believe' that the four women
were killed trying to run a roadblock -- a shameless lie that was soon
acknowledged as such by the State Department." The Reagan ambassador to
the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick suggested that "...the four women were
political activists for the 'Frente' -- as with Haig's statement, an
outright lie..."
"The difference between the murder of the four women and the thousands of
others uninvestigated and unresolved in El Salvador was that the families
of these victims were Americans and pressed the case, eventually
succeeding in getting Congress to focus on these particular murders..."
Details. When the bodies of these four churchwomen were found this news
merited only a back-page item in the Times . The "...accounts of the
violence done to the four murdered women were very succinct, omitted many
details, and were not repeated after the initial disclosures. No attempt
was made to reconstruct the scene with its agony and brutal violence."
For example, consider the Time account: [After giving the names of the
victims] "Two of the women had been raped before being shot in the back of
the head."
Contrast the above succinct account with the Raymond Bonner's account from
"Weakness and Deceit" [note: I am unable to determine if this is a book or
a magazine article]:
In the crude grave, stacked on top of each other were the bodies of four
women. The first hauled out of the hole was Jean Donovan, twenty-seven
years old, a lay missionary from Cleveland. Her face had been blown away
by a high calibre bullet that had been fired into the back of her head.
Her pants were unzipped; her underwear twisted around her ankles. When
area peasants found her, she was nude from the waist down. They had tried
to replace the garments before burial. Then came Dorothy Kazel, a
forty-year-old Ursuline nun also from Cleveland. At the bottom of the pit
were Maryknoll nuns Ita Ford, forty, and Maura Clarke, forty-nine, both
from New York. All the women had been executed at close range. The
peasants who found the women said that one had her underpants stuffed in
her mouth; another's had been tied over her eyes. All had been raped.
"We may note the failure of Time and the New York Times to mention the
bruises... the failure to mention the destruction of Jean Donovan's face;
the suppression of the degrading and degraded use of the nuns' underwear;
the failure to give the account of the peasants who found the bodies.
These and other details given by Bonner and suppressed by Time and the New
York Times (and also Newsweek and CBS News) add emotional force and
poignancy to the scene."
The press largely ignored or suppressed the funerals in the United States
of these four American churchwomen. The New York Times "...gave a tiny,
back-page, UPI account of the memorial service for Sister Dorothy Kazel."
Ambassador Kirkpatrick rationalized the United State's indirect complicity
in these murders by indicating that the victims may have been asking for
it. As Newsweek observed (Dec. 15, 1980), "The violence in El Salvador is
likely to focus with increasing ferocity on the Roman Catholic Church.
Many priests and nuns advocate reform, and some of them are militant
leftists. Such sentiments mean trouble, even for moderate members of the
clergy." The Newsweek article nowhere mentions that it was the U.S.-backed
government which initiated and carried out the bulk of the murdering.
In the case of the killing of these four women "...the media found it
extremely difficult to locate Salvadoran government involvement in the
murders, even with evidence staring them in the face. Their investigatory
zeal was modest, and they were happy to follow the leads of ('Trust me')
Duarte and U.S. officials as the case unfolded. They played dumb."
"Gradually, so much evidence seeped out to show that the women had been
murdered by members of the National Guard that the involvement of
government forces could no longer be evaded. A two-part process of 'damage
limitation' ensued, expounded by Salvadoran and U.S. officials and
faithfully reflected in the media."
"The most important goal of the immediate damage-containment process was
to stifle any serious investigation of the responsibility of the officials
of the Salvadoran government. The Salvadoran strategy was foot-dragging
from beginning to end... [There was] little doubt that the responsibility
for the crime went high. The U.S. official strategy... was to get the
low-level killers tried and convicted -- necessary to vindicate the system
of justice in El Salvador, at least to the extent of keeping the dollars
flowing from Congress -- while protecting the 'reformers' at the top."
The U.S. government "...engaged in a systematic cover-up -- of both the
Salvadoran cover-up and the facts of the case. The U.S. mass media, while
briefly noting the Salvadoran stonewalling, failed to call attention to
the equally important lies and suppressions of their own government. As we
have pointed out, both the Carter and Reagan administrations put
protection of its client above the quest for justice for four U.S.
citizens murdered by agents of that government."
"A second form of official U.S. participation in the cover-up was a
refusal to make public information on the Salvadoran investigation and
evidence uncovered by the United States itself. The Rogers report was
released belatedly, in a version that edited out the original report's
statement about the sad state of the Salvadoran system of justice... [A
later report] was kept under wraps for a long time, again apparently
because it had some serious criticism of the Salvadoran judicial process
that would have interfered with Reagan administration plans to claim
progress..."
"The families of the victims and their attorneys regularly found the U.S.
government unwilling to release information on the case."
(Edward Herman/Noam Chomsky, "Manufacturing Consent")
Big Mac
Watson) wrote:
>
>Chris, it sounds to me here and below that you haven't read the book
>through. As you use it to beat on me and it is my copy you use, I ask that
>you return it.
>
>
>That's not the gist of it at all. Cohn's book may not be perfect but it is
>nowhere near that unsophisticated. You would know it if you had read it.
>
>
>You're simply wrong, factually. Send me back my copy and get one of your
>own. I will be happy to talk about it.
>
>
>There's far more to it than that. Some of the case Werner levels at
>Chomsky is circumstantial but the accumulation of evidence is extremely
>persuasive. I don't believe you have read it.
Watson, you could save an awful lot of bandwidth for everyone if you'd
just standardise your posts as follows:-
1. Make laughable claim X about an opponent of the West;
2. State that the claim is supported by evidence in book Y;
3. Wait for the inevitable ridicule of claim X;
4. Respond to ridicule with "I know I posted X but really you need to
read the book Y to understand it";
5. Suggest that if, after reading the book Y, the claim is still
regarded as laughable then obviously the respondent didn't read _all_
of the book Y;
6. Run away and resurface the next day. Go back to step 1.
And yes, we do all read your posts compulsively. There's some serious
stuff to be discussed here (on occasion) and a little light relief is
always welcome.
Anyway, have a bun. I brought you your favourite today.
ps. Any sign of those 62 million yet? Have you looked under the bed?
Louis N Proyect
> ps. Any sign of those 62 million yet? Have you looked under the bed?
I think that what might be going on is that all the Jews, Gypsies,
Communists, etc. that got debited from Faurisson's genocide totals get
credited in Rummel's anti-Soviet ledgers. It's what they call double-entry
bookkeeping in the world of accounting. It might be more accurately called
cooking the books.
Louis P.
Chris Faatz
: > On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Chris Faatz wrote:
: >
: > > An even better list! His account of the Scopes Monkey Trial is one of the
: > > best things he ever wrote. What a mind, even if he was on the wrong
: > > side....
: >
: > You mean that your uncle is a monkey? I have to admit, you might have a
: > point there.
: >
: > Louis P.
: Well there you are, Chris. One insult after another, all on the altar of
: Marxist/Leninist anti-religious fanaticism.
Actually, HUnter, it's more of an illustration that he just doesn't know
what he's talking about when he derides my religious beliefs. He'd do well
to visit <http://www.uua.org> before he assumes I'm a Primitive Baptist
or a Campbellite--much less Russian Orthodox!
I won't side with him, so he has to slam me. Too bad. Doesn't take much to
figure that one out, does it?
Louis N Proyect
> Actually, HUnter, it's more of an illustration that he just doesn't know
> what he's talking about when he derides my religious beliefs. He'd do well
> to visit <http://www.uua.org> before he assumes I'm a Primitive Baptist
> or a Campbellite--much less Russian Orthodox!
I already know what you are. You are a Buddhist/Christian. As Barbra
Streisand once described Andre Agassi, you are a very "spiritually
evolved" guy as opposed to us Marxists, who would stick a knife into a
Nazi when push comes to shove. Personally I think what you really are is a
soulsick radical who doesn't have the guts to do what he really feels like
doing, which is to go whole-hog into religion so you can stop thinking
entirely.
>
> I won't side with him, so he has to slam me. Too bad. Doesn't take much to
> figure that one out, does it?
I am not asking you to side with me. I was asking you to stop telling apst
that Hunter Watson has "integrity" or else I would stand up to your
bullshit publicly as I am doing now. Dave Dellinger has integrity, Martin
Luther King Jr. had integrity. Watson has zero integrity. Neither do you.
If you had integrity, you'd admit that calling me "Herr" was not in the
spirit of the Quakers <g>, but just another way of calling me a Red
Fascist the way that Vigliemo was doing. I love the way you wormed out of
that one. It shows that beneath your holier-than-thou exterior, you have a
mean streak. When I am in the middle of a fight with a holocaust
denier--to the extent that word gets out to Nizkor--that is the time that
you decide to give me a German form of address.
Louis P.
redflag
> When I am in the middle of a fight with a holocaust
> denier--to the extent that word gets out to Nizkor--that is the time that
> you decide to give me a German form of address.
Why on earth are you in the middle of a fight with a holocaust denier?
Louis N Proyect
>
> Why on earth are you in the middle of a fight with a holocaust denier?
>
Because people like Neil Gardner and Hunter Watson will become more and
more representative as capitalism continues to decay. Socialists have to
be able to answer the lies of Faurisson and Rummel et al. I recommend
Pierre Vidal-Naquet's "Assassins of Memory" in particular. Vidal-Naquet
has been a leftist for many years and was involved in the Algerian
independence movement. Ward Churchill's latest book is also concerned with
holocaust denial.
Louis P.
William Barwell
David Rolfe Graeber <dr...@is4.nyu.edu> wrote:
>cka...@capaccess.org wrote:
>>
>> Let us return to the central point:
>
> You must really think I'm a sucker.
> No, Kalina. You lied. You got caught
>in a blatant lie. Actually my impression is
>your work is full of lies, but that one was
>so obvious it could be easily exposed.
To steal a quote, every word Kalina posts is a lie including the word
"the". When Kalina does not out right lie, or lie by ommision, he lies by
insinuation, loaded language, by false implication.
After wading through the thorough disscetion of Kalina's
bullshit, I have to say, he must be one of the most thoroughly
intellectually dishonest people on the net, and as one
who hangs around on alt.religion.scientology, that's saying a lot.
One wonder, what can do this to a human brain, what's his problem?
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Hunter H. Watson
> Watson, you could save an awful lot of bandwidth for everyone if you'd
> just standardise your posts as follows:-
>
> 1. Make laughable claim X about an opponent of the West;
> 2. State that the claim is supported by evidence in book Y;
> 3. Wait for the inevitable ridicule of claim X;
> 4. Respond to ridicule with "I know I posted X but really you need to
> read the book Y to understand it";
> 5. Suggest that if, after reading the book Y, the claim is still
> regarded as laughable then obviously the respondent didn't read _all_
> of the book Y;
> 6. Run away and resurface the next day. Go back to step 1.
And you could accurately characterize yourself by the above 6 points
excepting the reading.
Any time you wish to get to the history Mac, just let me know.
H.W.
Hunter H. Watson
<Pine.GSO.3.95qL.98090...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu>,
Louis N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu> wrote:
Amusing. They were both totalitarian. In terms of policy what difference
would it make?
Hunter Watson
Louis N Proyect
> And to say that I called you "Herr" as some kind of snide, anti-semitic
> comment is an act of contumely unworthy of you--yes, even of someone whose
> conscience, despite "twenty years of fighting imperialism," is as sick as
> yours is.
>
Anti-semitic? Yids don't call themselves "Herr". Germans do. As in Herr
Goering or Herr Himmler. You chose the word Herr not because the
conscious, superego-driven, goody-two shoes Chris Faatz intended to, but
because the subconscious, irrational, serpent-brained Chris Faatz took
over. You chose the word "Herr" because there had been 3 days of charges
from Vigliemo, Watson and Gardner about how I was riding roughshod over
them. I was a Red Fascist. So the devil in you overtook the innocent, pure
as the driven snow Chris Faatz who prays to Buddha in the morning and to
Lord Jesus in the evening, and caused you to smear me as a Red Fascist.
That's okay. I forgive you. I have turned the other cheek. It is okay if
the evil, demonic Chris Faatz takes over from time to time. I will pray
for you. I am a devout Yoruba worshipper myself. Late at night, I light
candles and put on Afro-Cuban chants and dance about my living-room in a
loin-cloth. I will pray for you and your client Hunter Watson. I will pray
that Shango forgive you.
Louis P.
Louis N Proyect
> And to say that I called you "Herr" as some kind of snide, anti-semitic
> comment is an act of contumely unworthy of you--yes, even of someone whose
> conscience, despite "twenty years of fighting imperialism," is as sick as
> yours is.
Well, I guess you meant to say that I was a fuckwit Quaker.
Louis P.
Chris Faatz
: I am not asking you to side with me. I was asking you to stop telling apst
: that Hunter Watson has "integrity" or else I would stand up to your
: bullshit publicly as I am doing now. Dave Dellinger has integrity, Martin
: Luther King Jr. had integrity. Watson has zero integrity. Neither do you.
: If you had integrity, you'd admit that calling me "Herr" was not in the
: spirit of the Quakers <g>, but just another way of calling me a Red
: Fascist the way that Vigliemo was doing. I love the way you wormed out of
: that one. It shows that beneath your holier-than-thou exterior, you have a
: mean streak. When I am in the middle of a fight with a holocaust
: denier--to the extent that word gets out to Nizkor--that is the time that
: you decide to give me a German form of address.
Listen, fuckwit. You're not the only person on this ng who's been in
fights with Nazis and Holocaust deniers. You may be one of the few who
manages, again and again, to alienate many, if not most, of the people
you come across, regardless of political stripe. Check backposts--yes,
I do wait until someone's proven themselves to be fascistic, etc. *But,*
I fight them as vigorously as you--maybe more so, since their betrayal,
to me, is a human betrayal, not some idiocy of fucking ideology.
Personally, I prefer Hunter's virulent, unabashed, and absolutely mistaken
anti-communism to your tendency to set up a straw man and then smash it
down--particularly in a personal context, as you do here.
And to say that I called you "Herr" as some kind of snide, anti-semitic
comment is an act of contumely unworthy of you--yes, even of someone whose
conscience, despite "twenty years of fighting imperialism," is as sick as
yours is.
People as objects, Louis. I don't buy it. You can have it.
You know what I am? You don't know shit, Mr. Big Wig University Prick.
And, you're not interested in breaking out of your precious intellectual
glass house to find out.
Some marxist.
You don't even know who you are.
YOu have fervor, knowledge, and commitment. Hunter has ten times the
integrity you have.
Now go away and leave me alone.
Chris Faatz
Oh yeah--<grin>
Chris Faatz
as abusively as he could in response to the following post by Louis.
: Louis N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu> wrote:
: : I am not asking you to side with me. I was asking you to stop telling apst
: : that Hunter Watson has "integrity" or else I would stand up to your
: : bullshit publicly as I am doing now. Dave Dellinger has integrity, Martin
: : Luther King Jr. had integrity. Watson has zero integrity. Neither do you.
: : If you had integrity, you'd admit that calling me "Herr" was not in the
: : spirit of the Quakers <g>, but just another way of calling me a Red
: : Fascist the way that Vigliemo was doing. I love the way you wormed out of
: : that one. It shows that beneath your holier-than-thou exterior, you have a
: : mean streak. When I am in the middle of a fight with a holocaust
: : denier--to the extent that word gets out to Nizkor--that is the time that
: : you decide to give me a German form of address.
For which he heartily apologizes <g>. Bad day. <g> Not a good enough
excuse, but it's all I have.
Again, let me state that I feel that Proyect's done much good in the
socialist movement, that he's a man of deep feeling and commitment, as
well as great intellect, and I have no doubt that he'll continue to do
good in anti-imperialist struggles around the world. It's too bad, though,
that his rage will continue to shoot him in the foot.
I stand by the gist of what I said. But, perhaps it would be more useful
to take the above bit by bit.
1) Dave Dellinger's a great man. MLK, Jr. was as well. I'm not. I just
muddle through. As to integrity, it's not limited to great men: it
includes those who are normal men and women who cleave to their ideas and
ideals, who strive forward against enormous odds with an open mind, and
who see that others have some kind of inherent worth and dignity--even
their enemies. It includes, of course, the ability to change one's mind
when enough evidence is provided to demand such a change--and to do so
with some humility. The way, for example, that Trotsky was converted to
Marxism (although, I suspect that, his being human, the woman involved may
have had something to do with that as well). In that sense, Quaker (do I
have to insert a <g> here? I need your help to make a parody of myself).
Emil Fuchs, a very normal man who refused to cooperate with the Nazis and
suffered terribly for it, was a man of integrity. Franz Jaegerstaetter, a
Catholic Austrian peasant, who refused to comply with the Nazi draft based
on scriptural commands, and was beheaded for it, was a truly great
man--and one who died alone. And, a man of great integrity.
The peasants of Central America who, based again in scripture, or in the
material realities of lives of oppression, put everything on the line are
people of integrity. So are the people who hid Jews during the Shoah--
including whole villages. And, so were the people of the Dominican
Republic who had the courage to hide their Haitian servants, friends, and
neighbors in 1937 when Trujillo decided that the bloodline of the
Conquistadors must be kept uncontaminated. "Only" 10,000 died in that one,
but you get the idea.
Hunter's integrity lies in 1) the conviction of his ideas, 2) his
willingness to express them in an overly hostile environment, and, 3)
his refusal to use the methods of his opponents--slander, namecalling,
and innuendo--in his defense. His ideas are mistaken, as I've said a
thousand thousand times, but he defends them well, and he does so in a
civil manner. Doesn't convince anyone, but is that a crime? I wonder what
kind of a "new society" you're planning for the likes of Hunter, Lou....
Or for me? Like Michael Servetus, I'm a physical coward--please don't
burn me at the stake. I'd much prefer to be beheaded. Look on the bright
side, it's quicker, less messy, and as permanent in getting rid of heresy
as your other options.
2) Lou, your allusion to the "Herr" red herring is just plain silly. And,
your saying that it's "in the spirit of the Quakers" is idiotic. It *is*
contumely, and I urge you do drop it. You're open, on the same grounds,
to the accusation that you believe the entire German people was guilty
of the holocaust. And equally idiotic assertion, and one that I'd never
make. Hell, even "The New Republic" has shot Goldhagen down on that one.
3) Nizkor. Honey boy, Nizkor *always* shows up when the Nazis and
revisionists and plain muddle heads show up. They didn't show up in
response to your valiant stand; the initial posts were across several
newsgroups (and I made sure that Marc V's was posted as widely as
possible). You just can't, with any credence at all, to have drawn them
by your battle cries. They'd've been here regardless. It's called
integrity--they *know* where the battle is, and they go to it. And, they
take it seriously.
After OK City, I hung out on a militia ng for a while. People I *really*
disagreed with. They had a bunch of goons from the National Alliance on
there. They also had Nizkor (my! what an unlikely place, if one gets
stuck in their preconceptions). The ng voted overwhelmingly to block
all folks who'd supported or posted NA posts. I was proud to have the
ability to vote with people I didn't agree with on the expulsion of
fascists from the ng.
And, guess what else: they knew me explicitly as a pacifist and a leftist.
And, while they were more than ready to argue with me, they never treated
me less than civilly. We were in a common battle. They thought and think
they're fighting for the soul America. I'm fighting for the Kingdom with
the sword of the Spirit (as best I can, and while remaining rather
sceptical about so much of it).
4) You really don't know what I am. I'm a "christian/buddhist." Okay,
Louis, what's that mean?
Let me ease your plight in this respect. I'm Christian in the Jeffersonian
sense. It was put this way by John Buehrens, president of the Unitarian
Universalist Association, my denomination, recently: "I often describe
myself as a *biblical* humanist. I find the religion *about* Jesus
distracting and divisive, but I am persistently drawn toward the spirit,
example, and religion *of* Jesus."
I'm not concerned with the resurrection (except as a metaphor for struggle
and liberation in the lives and experience of oppressed peoples, as you'll
find if you read any of my writings on the LRNA site in the Spirit of the
Revolution column), but I *am* concerned with living in accordance with
the Sermon on the Mount, to the extent that that's possible. Mostly in an
ethical sense. As you'll note, if you *do* visit the LRNA site (an
unlikely thing, as I well know. You'd much prefer to know me as the
caricature that exists in your mind), my theology's also been heavily
influenced by Anabaptists (Mennonites, Bruderhofers, The Schleitheim
Confession, etc.) and by Quakers. But, in the end, I'm not really a
Christian, although more that than anything else. I refer to myself, fwiw,
as a "universalist," not in the historic sense, but in a contemporary
liberal religious sense. See the Quaker Universalist Fellowship at
<http://www.quaker.org> for more on this one.
At heart, I'm much more influenced by Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker
(I wonder why you keep ignoring this assertion?), Martin Buber and _Paths
In Utopia_, George Fox, John Woolman, Lucretia Mott, and other such folks
than much else. You can say that the Christian anarchism, with marxist
leanings, is increasingly my anthem as I grow older. I guess if you
combined Dorothy Day with Peter Kropotkin and Staughton Lynd (the Quaker,
Pacifist, and labor solidarity worder), you'd get a good idea of where I
stand. In my youth, I was in the British section of the USFI when we won
our pyrrhic victory over the Barnesites, and then in the FIT, dropping out
just before the decision to enter Solidarity.
The stuff I read regularly includes the New Republic, Dissent, the Nation
(when I can stomach it), Religious Socialism, the Plough and the Catholic
Worker, Red & Black Notes, the Discussion Bulletin, PWW and Political
Affairs, the People, and the New Unionist, the Socialist, and every now
and then ATC, BIDOM, and ITT. In the "milieu," I read Workers' Action (UK)
and Proletarian REvolution. I also read a great deal from the conservative
end of the spectrum, and have enormous respect for the likes of Frank
Meyer, Albert J. Nock, and Robert Nisbet. Before I'm tried and executed by
reason of intellectual collusion, I loathe Burnham, and I find Kirk
pompous as hell, but essential to understanding American conservatism. I
also read the Buddhist magazines Tricycle, Shambhala Sun, and Buddhism Now
(from Britain).
As to Buddhism: I'm not normal there either. Your best bet is to find
the Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship site. If you can't find
that, Stephen Batchelor's excellent and stimulating book, _Buddhism
Without Beliefs_ (meaning without reincarnation, demigods, etc.) pretty
much sums me up. Other people I'm influenced by include Ajahn Sumedho,
Robert Aitken Roshi, and Charlotte Joko Beck, the latter two instrumental
in defining a Dharma for the west devoid of specific cultural trappings.
There's much more. But, ideologically, that's where I come from. Now, you
can actually say you *do* know something about who I am--or you can't make
assertions that are self-contradictory.
So. It's all yours now. And, again, my apologies for attacking you. I know
it probably doesn't mean much to you, but it means much to me. And, so I
apologize, knowing you don't give a good God Damn.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris Faatz
: > And to say that I called you "Herr" as some kind of snide, anti-semitic
: > comment is an act of contumely unworthy of you--yes, even of someone whose
: > conscience, despite "twenty years of fighting imperialism," is as sick as
: > yours is.
: Well, I guess you meant to say that I was a fuckwit Quaker.
No, just a fuckwit. Never a Quaker. Don't worry. <g>
--
Chris Faatz
: On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Chris Faatz wrote:
: > And to say that I called you "Herr" as some kind of snide, anti-semitic
: > comment is an act of contumely unworthy of you--yes, even of someone whose
: > conscience, despite "twenty years of fighting imperialism," is as sick as
: > yours is.
: >
: Anti-semitic? Yids don't call themselves "Herr". Germans do. As in Herr
: Goering or Herr Himmler. You chose the word Herr not because the
: conscious, superego-driven, goody-two shoes Chris Faatz intended to, but
: because the subconscious, irrational, serpent-brained Chris Faatz took
: over. You chose the word "Herr" because there had been 3 days of charges
: from Vigliemo, Watson and Gardner about how I was riding roughshod over
: them. I was a Red Fascist. So the devil in you overtook the innocent, pure
: as the driven snow Chris Faatz who prays to Buddha in the morning and to
: Lord Jesus in the evening, and caused you to smear me as a Red Fascist.
Well, hope I've cleared this up. And, to make things even more hilarious,
I haven't read (again) any of the threads you're referring to. YOu see, I
really am *not* interested in what you write--or in what Marc V writes
either. As to prayer, that's between I and I.
: That's okay. I forgive you. I have turned the other cheek. It is okay if
: the evil, demonic Chris Faatz takes over from time to time. I will pray
: for you. I am a devout Yoruba worshipper myself. Late at night, I light
: candles and put on Afro-Cuban chants and dance about my living-room in a
: loin-cloth. I will pray for you and your client Hunter Watson. I will pray
: that Shango forgive you.
Hey, buddy, you could do worse. Don't forget to bite the head off the
chicken.
--
Louis N Proyect
> Again, let me state that I feel that Proyect's done much good in the
> socialist movement, that he's a man of deep feeling and commitment, as
> well as great intellect, and I have no doubt that he'll continue to do
> good in anti-imperialist struggles around the world. It's too bad, though,
> that his rage will continue to shoot him in the foot.
Who appointed you to be the judge of other leftists? Does burning incense
to Buddha or keeping a plaster Jesus on your dashboard give you this
right?
> I stand by the gist of what I said. But, perhaps it would be more useful
> to take the above bit by bit.
>
> 1) Dave Dellinger's a great man. MLK, Jr. was as well. I'm not. I just
> muddle through. As to integrity, it's not limited to great men: it
> includes those who are normal men and women who cleave to their ideas and
> ideals, who strive forward against enormous odds with an open mind, and
> who see that others have some kind of inherent worth and dignity--even
> their enemies.
To dream the impossible dream...
> Hunter's integrity lies in 1) the conviction of his ideas, 2) his
> willingness to express them in an overly hostile environment, and, 3)
> his refusal to use the methods of his opponents--slander, namecalling,
> and innuendo--in his defense. His ideas are mistaken, as I've said a
Hunter Watson commented to me: "You're a perpetual Jerk. Marc has his
eccentricities and I'm having some considerable problems with both of them
on the Holocaust revisionism thing, but face it, Louis, Vigliemo is better
and more widely read than you -- and he is honest."
> thousand thousand times, but he defends them well, and he does so in a
> civil manner. Doesn't convince anyone, but is that a crime? I wonder what
> kind of a "new society" you're planning for the likes of Hunter, Lou....
> Or for me? Like Michael Servetus, I'm a physical coward--please don't
> burn me at the stake. I'd much prefer to be beheaded. Look on the bright
> side, it's quicker, less messy, and as permanent in getting rid of heresy
> as your other options.
>
New society? I have this all worked out. Hunter Watson will be burned at
the stake. You will be thrown in a dungeon and forced to listen to tapes
of Chairman Gonzalo played at high volumes 24 hours a day until you
renounce Buddha/Jesus and swear fealty to dialectical materialism. I have
this all planned out in an elaborate blueprint. Punishment is in chapter
13. Chapter 12 is concerned with how to plan the economy.
> 2) Lou, your allusion to the "Herr" red herring is just plain silly. And,
> your saying that it's "in the spirit of the Quakers" is idiotic. It *is*
> contumely, and I urge you do drop it. You're open, on the same grounds,
> to the accusation that you believe the entire German people was guilty
> of the holocaust. And equally idiotic assertion, and one that I'd never
> make. Hell, even "The New Republic" has shot Goldhagen down on that one.
Still evading, aren't we? Not a very nice Christian/Buddhist thing to do.
What I told you is that when people like Vigliemo--one of Watson's better
read and more honest individuals on apst--are calling me A RED NAZI, I
absolutely resent you referring to me as "Herr". Herr in the context of
what was going on can only be understood as an endorsement of the charge
that I was some kind of authoritarian figure with monocle and jackboots,
like Otto Preminger in Stalag 17.
>
> 3) Nizkor. Honey boy, Nizkor *always* shows up when the Nazis and
> revisionists and plain muddle heads show up. They didn't show up in
> response to your valiant stand; the initial posts were across several
> newsgroups (and I made sure that Marc V's was posted as widely as
> possible). You just can't, with any credence at all, to have drawn them
> by your battle cries. They'd've been here regardless. It's called
> integrity--they *know* where the battle is, and they go to it. And, they
> take it seriously.
This is really not germane to what I was telling you. What I was telling
you that when a holocaust denier like Marc Vigliemo was calling me a Red
Fascist, I didn't appreciate you calling me "Herr". Further, I don't
appreciate you still playing innocent. Why is so hard to say something
like: "Okay, Lou. I have to admit it. I do think that if you took power,
you'd throw spiritually evolved people like me in a Gulag. You do come
across as a Red Fascist, a Khmer Rouge kind of guy. So when I called you
"Herr" as a way to dramatize the fascist threat you pose, that was a
mistake. I apologize. I should have called you something like Pol Pot
instead..."
> And, guess what else: they knew me explicitly as a pacifist and a leftist.
> And, while they were more than ready to argue with me, they never treated
> me less than civilly. We were in a common battle. They thought and think
> they're fighting for the soul America. I'm fighting for the Kingdom with
> the sword of the Spirit (as best I can, and while remaining rather
> sceptical about so much of it).
I don't have much use for civility when it comes to people like Hunter
Watson. I think he is a liar and an apologist for the American Holocaust.
Since you don't seem to have any political understanding of the American
Holocaust, this point is lost on you.
> Let me ease your plight in this respect. I'm Christian in the Jeffersonian
> sense. It was put this way by John Buehrens, president of the Unitarian
> Universalist Association, my denomination, recently: "I often describe
> myself as a *biblical* humanist. I find the religion *about* Jesus
> distracting and divisive, but I am persistently drawn toward the spirit,
> example, and religion *of* Jesus."
Unitarian? Hmmmm. Here's what my favorite lurker on apst has to say about
this outfit:
Probably the most interesting thing about the Unitarian-Universalists is
that they encompass in one denomination a whole range of beliefs including
liberal Christians, humanists, atheists & agnostics,
"Christian-Buddhists", New Agers, wiccans, and what-not. In other words a
whole mish-mash that can hardly said to be coherent. To what end I am not
sure. In the old days one of the prime functions of the church seemed to
that of giving upper crust atheists a respectable cover. The fact that
the church has gone out of the way in recent years to recruit New Agers,
Wiccans, and even UFO buffs seems to have deprived this 'non-creedal'
church of whatever little coherence that it had. To what end I am not
sure. I suppose Faatz is comfortable there.
Louis P.
Marc Viglielmo
Louis N Proyect wrote:
> That's okay. I forgive you. I have turned the other cheek. It is okay if
> the evil, demonic Chris Faatz takes over from time to time. I will pray
> for you. I am a devout Yoruba worshipper myself. Late at night, I light
> candles and put on Afro-Cuban chants and dance about my living-room in a
> loin-cloth. I will pray for you and your client Hunter Watson. I will pray
> that Shango forgive you.
>
> Louis P.
Mr. Proyect, you have (partially) redeemed yourself. I could not help
laughing at this. If you still have that much of a sense of humor, I still have
hope for you. This is almost as good as the posts you wrote against Stevens, on
the sex toys issue, which evidently had the effect of driving that poor
unfortunate Lenin/Trotsky cultist from this newsgroup (I miss him, in a strange
way -- his "Sinister Coprophile Viglielmo and his toxic spewage" post gave me
many laughs, and (sniff, sniff) and he livened things up, in a way. Now he's
gone.) One of the reasons I respect Tom Smith, even though he has a lot of
problems, is that he fights back and doesn't whine. Stevens began to whine
about your physical threats, and, well, that was it for him. No more respect.
Faatz whines sometimes, too, but I think he's developing that thick skin that
the great James P. Cannon wrote about in his book "Notebook of an Agitator". I
respect him for that. Paul LeBlanc is a whiner, and I don't have much respect
for him.
I guess I just have to be vicious like you, Mr. Proyect. Faatz can then
make a documentary about me, a la Mike Wallace "The Viciousness that Viciousness
Produced".
Big Mac
wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, redflag wrote:
>
>>
>> Why on earth are you in the middle of a fight with a holocaust denier?
>>
>
>Because people like Neil Gardner and Hunter Watson will become more and
>more representative as capitalism continues to decay.
Aren't you kicking at an open door, Louis? Suppression of Holocaust
deniers is state policy across the "decaying capitalist Western world"
nowadays. What's more important is to explain why the Holocaust is
such a hot topic in the 90's, when for decades after the actual events
it was seemingly of little interest (even in the immediate aftermath
of the war it received nothing like the media and intellectual
attention it gets nowadays). It's become a moral touchstone for the
New Victim Cult, perhaps ... ?
Louis N Proyect
> Aren't you kicking at an open door, Louis? Suppression of Holocaust
> deniers is state policy across the "decaying capitalist Western world"
> nowadays. What's more important is to explain why the Holocaust is
> such a hot topic in the 90's, when for decades after the actual events
> it was seemingly of little interest (even in the immediate aftermath
> of the war it received nothing like the media and intellectual
> attention it gets nowadays). It's become a moral touchstone for the
> New Victim Cult, perhaps ... ?
You have to look at the question more dialectically. There are differences
in the ruling-class over what attitude to take toward fascism and
neo-Nazism.
The problem with LM is that its analysis has become extremely dated. It is
based on the economic situation of maybe five years ago. We have entered a
period of profound economic and social crisis. It will involve more
frequent militant mass actions by the working-class such as the kind that
took place recently in South Korea. Hyundai strikers made a barricade of
new cars in front of an occupied plant and armed themselves with lead
pipes and molotov cocktails. They told the cops that they would die rather
than end the strike. As it turned out, their militancy helped to win the
strike.
As these types of confrontations continue, the bourgeois state will be
forced to draw upon extraparliamentary means to defend its rule. This is
significance of the skinhead movement, the militias, Le Pen, etc. One of
the ideological elements that unites all of these neo-Fascist groups is
holocaust denial. Visit their web-sites and you find favorable references
to Harwood, Faurisson, et al.
The task for the revolutionary movement is the same as it has always been.
It must confront this scum and its apologists like Neil Gardner through
direct action and not rely on the courts or police. There was a march of
neo-Nazis in Cour D'Alene, Colorado last month which drew a
counter-demonstration of socialists and radicals from the entire
northwest. We must prepare for more and more of these types of actions. In
addition to this, we must be ideologically armed. Since a section of the
ruling class will undoubtedly be reaching out to the neo-fascist scum, we
must be able to take them on ideologically as well.
Louis P.
Louis N Proyect
> I guess I just have to be vicious like you, Mr. Proyect. Faatz can then
For tips on viciousness, I'd suggest a visit to Ernst Zundel's website.
Oh, excuse me, I forgot that's where you spend much of your time already.
Louis P.
Louis N Proyect
The most frequently observed shapes of U.F.O.'s, as reported from around
the world. Note similarity to actual German Flying Saucers.
"SS" emblem indicates known NAZI saucer shapes similar to W.W. II designs.
(67 pictures of saucers shown, 42 of which are labelled "SS.")
QUESTIONS TO ASK U.F.O. CREW?
WHAT IS YOUR NAME?
WIE HEISSEN SIE?
WHERE ARE YOU FROM?
WO SIND SIE HER?
WHAT IS YOUR MISSION?
WAS WOLLEN SIE?
DO YOU HAVE A MESSAGE?
HABEN SIE EINE NACHRICHT?
MAY I VISIT THE INTERIOR OF YOUR CRAFT?
DARF ICH DAS INNERE IHRER MASCHINE BESICHTIGEN?
WHAT IS YOUR METHOD OF PROPULSION?
WAS IST IHR ANTRIEB?
WHAT IS YOUR TOP SPEED AND RANGE?
WAS IST IHRE HVCHSTGESCHWINDIGKEIT UND REICHWEITE?
IS YOUR CRAFT ARMED?
SIND SIE BEWAFFNET?
WITH WHAT TYPE OF WEAPON?
MIT WELCHER ART WAFFEN?
Investigator's Name ___________________________________
Address _______________________________________________
City __________________________________________________
State/Province ________________________________________
Country _______________________________________________
Phone No. ______________ Nationality __________________
Show this pass to U.F.O. occupants or authorities, when conducting an
investigation.
PHOTO OF INVESTIGATOR
(blank space for photo)
Did you get your spotter chart? $1.00 from Samisdat Publishers, 206
Carleton St., Toronto, Can.
Louis N Proyect
Wednesday, September 2, 1998; 10:02 p.m. EDT
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- Riot police stormed plants of
South Korea's largest auto parts maker Thursday to break
up an 18-day-old strike by thousands of workers
protesting layoffs.
In coordinated dawn assaults at seven Mando Machinery
Corp. plants around the country, some 8,000 riot police
used bulldozers and tear gas to break through barricades
and disperse strikers.
MBC-TV said one worker was taken to a hospital after
falling from a fourth-floor building in an apparent suicide
attempt. His condition was not immediately known.
Police quickly overpowered workers in five smaller plants,
but fierce fighting erupted at the company's two main
plants in Asan and Pyongtaek in central South Korea,
where about 800 workers were holed up.
Mando's 4,300 unionized workers went on strike Aug. 17
to protest the company's plan to dismiss 1,090
employees. Authorities outlawed the strike because the
union did not submit to mandatory government mediation.
Arrest warrants were issued for 24 organizers.
Police said they detained about 500 workers. All but the
24 union leaders being sought by authorities will be
released, they said.
It was the first use of police force to break up a labor
protest under the new government of President Kim
Dae-jung. Layoffs are legal but new to Korean workers,
long accustomed to lifetime employment.
Mando is a monopoly supplier of air conditioners, heaters,
alternators and other key components for Hyundai Motor
Co. and other domestic automakers.
South Korean auto companies have been operating since
early this year at about 50 percent of their combined
capacity of 4 million vehicles a year.
Mando is a subsidiary of the Halla group, South Korea's
12th largest conglomerate. Halla defaulted on $220
million in debts last December.
Halla plans to sell off an undisclosed amount of stock in
Mando to foreign investors. So far, Ford, General Motors
and a few other foreign carmakers reportedly have shown
interest.
Mando sold $1 billion in car components last year, 80
percent of them to Hyundai, the nation's largest
automaker.
Copyright 1998 The Associated Press
Louis N Proyect
3 September 1998 [for personal use only]
Corporate US rethinks free market for Russia American executives say
Russia should be left to find its own answers, without being forced to
conform to IMF programs to get aid.
BY MICHAEL S. LELYVELD JOURNAL OF COMMERCE STAFF
Through seven years of crises, U.S. business leaders have insisted that
you can't turn back the clock in Russia. Now, some are starting to argue
that the Russians should at least be given a chance to try. The turnaround
comes as President Clinton closed a two-day Moscow summit Wednesday with
renewed promises of support and pressure for market reforms. "I know this
is a difficult time, but there is no short cut," Mr. Clinton said. "If the
reform process can be completed, I for one would be for greater assistance
to Russia." In response, President Boris Yeltsin pledged allegiance to the
process that he started on Jan. 1, 1992, with the "big bang" of price
decontrols. "We are still obliged to take these reforms to the end,
through the end, and correspondingly get a reward for that," he said.
ONLY HARDSHIP
"What reward?" has been the response of many Russians who can see only
hardship as their ruble dropped to 8.5 cents Wednesday. The currency has
fallen by a factor of more than 20,000 since Nov. 1, 1990, when the
then-Soviet government took the first steps toward monetary reform. Mr.
Clinton's formula of dangling carrots before the Russians, while insisting
that they bear greater pain, has sparked scorn among analysts.
'IT IS PATHETIC'
"I think it is pathetic," said Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon
Center for Peace and Freedom in Washington. "These people are almost
addicted to their concept of social engineering. This administration is a
global nanny." What makes this ruble crisis so different is that it has
also started to destroy support for Western-style economic prescriptions
among some major U.S. business interests.
DIFFER ON DETAILS
"We were so supremely confident in what we were saying. Guess what? It
didn't work," said Deborah Anne Palmieri, president of the
Russian-American Chamber of Commerce. While Mr. Simes and Ms. Palmieri
differ on details of what needs to be done, they agree that Russia should
be left to find its own solution, without being forced to conform to
International Monetary Fund programs as a prerequisite for aid.
WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS
If that means instituting wage and price controls, or renationalizing
basic industries to ensure supplies and employment, so be it, says Ms.
Palmieri. "This is just crying out for a Russian solution that's bottom-up
and suited to Russian needs," she said. "We need to be looking at this as
an international state of emergency." On Wednesday, there were increasing
signs that the architecture of Western solutions had collapsed. Despite
IMF warnings that there can be no further loans without increased tax
collections, the August tax take fell 900 million rubles below that of
July, nearly 35% short of budget targets, according to Bridge News. Giant
Gazprom, the nation's gas monopoly and top tax debtor, reduced its monthly
payment by 500 million rubles below the level it agreed to pay only one
month ago.
BIG INVESTORS SHOW RESOLVE
In the past week, some major and traditional strategic investors in Russia
have shown their resolve to stick with the country. McDonald's Corp.
pledged normal operations, saying it will open its 40th outlet this month,
Intercon's Daily Report on Russia reported. Boeing Co. said it has no
plans to cut back on its projects in Russia and will actually increase its
staff. A spokeswoman for heavy equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said the
company has no second thoughts about building a new plant near St.
Petersburg at a cost of some $50 million, announced just last month. But
most other businesses are on hold while the ruble's value tries to find
its floor, said Kay Larcon, senior vice president of the U.S.- Russia
Business Council in Washington. "I don't think anybody's leaving," she
said. But she added, "I don't think they can sell anything."
NEW LEVEL OF PAIN
Despite modern Russia's history of coup attempts and catastrophes, Ms.
Larcon also sees this crisis as a new level of pain for both Russians and
foreign investors. "They've been through it all, they've seen everything,
and this is the worst," she said. One change is that some major U.S.
companies were caught with their deposits in Russian banks when the Aug.
17 smash-up came, said Ms. Larcon. Although Western banks fought a long
legal battle to gain access to the market, many foreign investors
preferred to do business with Russian institutions because of their
contacts. The devaluation and the moratorium on short-term debt payments
caught U.S. corporations by surprise.
SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME?
After struggling for years with the lack of a tax code, land reform and
production-sharing legislation, foreign companies now have no idea what
the future shape of Russia's government, its economy or its regulatory
framework will be. But Ms. Palmieri believes there will be no future for
business until putting food on Russian tables takes priority over economic
theories. "I'm just seeing this enormous sense of despair, just shattered
expectations," she said. "All of the companies are concerned about the
human side of this."
Marc Viglielmo
Louis N Proyect wrote:
> As these types of confrontations continue, the bourgeois state will be
> forced to draw upon extraparliamentary means to defend its rule. This is
> significance of the skinhead movement, the militias, Le Pen, etc. One of
> the ideological elements that unites all of these neo-Fascist groups is
> holocaust denial. Visit their web-sites and you find favorable references
> to Harwood, Faurisson, et al.
The "bourgeois" state in the U.S. has been waging war on the militias.
The liberals and the organized left have been aiding the government in
systematically discouraging any serious discussion of what happened at Waco,
or Ruby Ridge, or Mena, or what happened to Vincent Foster. When you have a
whole range of organizations which consistently work to divert attention from,
and to discourage discussion, concerning the very scandals which are most
damaging to the government, that is more than a coincidence. I think it is
entirely possible that the government is funding some of the left
organizations, covertly, through intermediaries. Many people on the left are
simply being duped, and have been trained to simply ignore entire subjects
relating to government misconduct.
> The task for the revolutionary movement is the same as it has always been.
> It must confront this scum and its apologists like Neil Gardner through
> direct action and not rely on the courts or police. There was a march of
> neo-Nazis in Cour D'Alene, Colorado last month which drew a
> counter-demonstration of socialists and radicals from the entire
> northwest. We must prepare for more and more of these types of actions. In
> addition to this, we must be ideologically armed. Since a section of the
> ruling class will undoubtedly be reaching out to the neo-fascist scum, we
> must be able to take them on ideologically as well.
>
The powers that be know that they can tie up the left by simply having a
few of their agents organize tiny KKK or neo-Nazi demonstrations. It is very
cost-effective. All you have to do is get a few people to put on KKK or
neo-Nazi uniforms, and announce that you will simply march down a street, and
every leftist and a lot of liberals will drop everything they're doing, by the
hundreds and thousands, for hundreds of miles around, and go to confront the
rightists. The rightists (whether they are government agents or not) can keep
this up indefinitely. Year after year these confrontations go on, and there
is no end in sight. No one on the left ever asks if these confrontations are
really effective. Are the KKK and neo-Nazis going away? Have their numbers
decreased? Any psychologist will tell you that you feed a person's martyr
complex when you show up by the thousands to confront a tiny group of people
merely marching down the street. No one dares to suggest that you might just
try to talk to the "fascist scum", to find out what makes them tick, and learn
more about how they arrived at their convictions. Anyone who suggests such a
thing is immediately labeled a "fascist". Meanwhile the government
continues to get away with murder. The murderers of the Davidians, the
Weavers, of the people in Arkansas, have not been punished.
There is a con-game going on, which is based on manipulation of
anti-racist sentiment, and no one on the left seems to have caught on.
Joseph A. Tomaras
<Pine.GSO.3.95qL.9809...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu>,
ln...@columbia.edu says...
>direct action and not rely on the courts or police. There was a
march of
>neo-Nazis in Cour D'Alene, Colorado last month which drew a
>counter-demonstration of socialists and radicals from the entire
>northwest. We must prepare for more and more of these types of
actions. In
That's Coeur D'Alene, Idaho. Surely the site of some intense IWW-era
class battles deserves to have its name gotten right.
Louis N Proyect
> That's Coeur D'Alene, Idaho. Surely the site of some intense IWW-era
> class battles deserves to have its name gotten right.
Arrrgghhh! Creeping Alzheimers.
Chris Faatz
: In article
: ln...@columbia.edu says...
: >direct action and not rely on the courts or police. There was a
: march of
: >neo-Nazis in Cour D'Alene, Colorado last month which drew a
: >counter-demonstration of socialists and radicals from the entire
: >northwest. We must prepare for more and more of these types of
: actions. In
: That's Coeur D'Alene, Idaho. Surely the site of some intense IWW-era
: class battles deserves to have its name gotten right.
Absolutely right. There was, by the way, a very large (well, for that
particular organization) FSP contingent there. I suspect their web site
has the report they wrote, or I could get them to post it here.
Apparently, the United Front Agains Fascism in the PNW was quite
effective. The ISO boycotted and organized their own action.
Joseph A. Tomaras
cfa...@user1.teleport.com says...
>Absolutely right. There was, by the way, a very large (well, for
that
>particular organization) FSP contingent there. I suspect their web
site
>has the report they wrote, or I could get them to post it here.
>
>Apparently, the United Front Agains Fascism in the PNW was quite
>effective. The ISO boycotted and organized their own action.
Did they give ANY public justification for this?
Hunter H. Watson
<Pine.GSO.3.95qL.9809...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu>, Louis
N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Hunter H. Watson wrote:
>
> > Nothing changes. Under Lenin and his close colleagues, "The Communists
> > attacked religious beliefs and practices with a vehemence not seen since
> > the days of the Roman Empire. Their aggressive atheism affected the mass
>
> FATHER RUTILIO GRANDE
>
> "The murder of one of the seventy-two, Father Rutilio Grande, was an
> important landmark in the escalation of violence in El Salvador... Rutilio
> Grande was shot to death, along with a teenager and a seventy-two-year-old
> peasant, while on his way to Mass on March 12, 1977."
>
> Archbishop Oscar Arnolfo Romero "...wrote to the president of El Salvador,
> Arturo Armando Molina, urging a thorough investigation, which was
> promised. A week later, the church having established that it was probably
> police bullets that had killed the three victims, Romero wrote a harsher
> letter to Molina..." Still the government did nothing. "With continued
> inaction, Romero threatened to refuse church participation in any official
> government event unless the murders were investigated and the killers
> brought to justice." There was still almost no response from the
> Salvadoran government. The bodies had not been exhumed. The bullets used
> in the murders were still in the graves. Archbishop Romero and the clergy
> "... finally decided to take dramatic action: temporary school closings,
> and implementation of the previously mentioned threat to refuse to support
> the government and other power groups on official occasions."
>
> "This entire package of murder and church response was hardly lacking in
> drama and newsworthiness. Yet murder, the confrontation of the desperate
> church with a repressive state, and the dramatic acts carried out to try
> to mobilize support in its self-defense were subject to a virtual blackout
> in the U.S. mass media... This [lack of media coverage] was important in
> allowing the terror to go on unimpeded."
>
> ARCHBISHOP OSCAR ROMERO
>
> At the time of his murder, Archbishop Oscar Romero "...had become the
> foremost and most outspoken critic of the policy of repression by murder
> being carried out by the U.S.-supported military government. In his last
> sermon, he appealed to members of the army and security forces to refuse
> to kill their Salvadoran brethren, a call that enraged the officer corps
> trying to build a lower-class military that was willing to kill freely."
>
> A few weeks before his murder, Romero "...had written a forceful letter to
> President Jimmy Carter opposing the imminent granting of U.S. aid to the
> junta as destructive of Salvadoran interests. The Carter administration
> had been so disturbed by Romero's opposition to its policies that it had
> secretly lobbied the pope to curb the archbishop."
>
> Romero's opposition to U.S. policy in El Salvador qualified him for the
> status of "unworthy victim," i.e. unworthy of serious media attention in
> the United States. The U.S. media's news coverage of the archbishop's
> murder and its follow-up reached "...new levels of dishonesty and
> propaganda service in their coverage of this and related events."
>
> From the New York Times, March 25, 1980: Archbishop Romero was killed by a
> sniper who got out of a red car, apparently stood just inside the door of
> the Chapel of the Divine Providence Hospital, fired a single shot at the
> prelate and fled. The bullet struck the archbishop in the heart, according
> to a doctor at the hospital where the prelate was taken. [There was no
> arrest or trial].
>
> The U.S. media has tried to paint a picture of El Salvador as having a
> centrist government with the killing being done by extremists of the right
> and the left. It has tended to rely heavily on official U.S. sources for
> its information. One of these official sources, John Bushnell, of the
> State Department, "...stated before a house appropriations committee that
> 'there is some misperception by those who follow the press that the
> government is itself repressive in El Salvador,' when in fact the violence
> is 'from the extreme right and the extreme left' and 'the smallest part'
> of the killings come from the army and security forces. This statement was
> a knowing lie, contradicted by all independent evidence coming out of El
> Salvador and refuted by Archbishop Romero [before his murder] on an almost
> daily basis."
>
> Even though this official source was clearly in error, the U.S. mass media
> "...followed the Bushnell formula virtually without deviation: there was a
> 'civil war between extreme right and leftist groups' (New York Times, Feb.
> 25, 1980); the 'seemingly well meaning but weak junta' was engaging in
> reforms but was unable to check the terror (Time, Apr. 7, 1980)."
>
> And the Salvadoran government has continued to be "moderate" and
> "centrist" up to today [according to the U.S. media].
>
> "At Archbishop Romero's funeral, on March 30, 1980, where many thousands
> gathered to pay tribute, bomb explosions and gunfire killed some forty
> people and injured hundreds more. The version of the event provided by
> U.S. Ambassador Robert White and the Salvadoran government was that 'armed
> terrorists of the ultra left sowed panic among the masses and did all they
> could to provoke the security forces into returning fire. But the
> discipline of the armed forces held."
>
> "However, a mimeographed statement on March 30, signed by twenty- two
> church leaders present at the funeral, claimed that the panic had been
> started by a bomb thrown from the national palace, followed by machine-gun
> and other shots coming from its second floor. This account was
> suppressed... and was never mentioned in the New York Times."
>
> "The assassins of Archbishop Romero were never 'officially' discovered or
> prosecuted, and he joined the ranks of the tens of thousands of other
> Salvadorans murdered without justice being done."
>
> Subsequent to the murder of Archbishop Romero, "...a great deal of
> evidence became available showing that Roberto D'Aubuisson was at the
> center of a conspiracy to murder Romero. On the basis of numerous
> interviews with Arena party activists and U.S. officials, and examination
> of State Department cables, investigative reporters Craig Pyes and Laurie
> Becklund claimed in 1983 that D'Aubuisson had planned the assassination
> with a group of active-duty military officers, who drew straws for the
> honor of carrying out the murder."
>
> There was "...substantial evidence concerning the identity of Romero's
> murderers, and there were significant links of the murders to the highest
> officials of the Salvadoran military establishment."
>
> The accumulating evidence of high-level involvement in the murder was not
> given significant attention by the U.S. media. "It was back-page material
> at best, treated matter-of-factly and never put in a framework of
> indignation and outrage by the use of emotive language or by asking allies
> of Romero to comment on the evidence, and it never elicited strident
> demands for justice. To this day one will find no mention of the fact that
> the effective rulers of this 'fledgling democracy' are military officers
> who were closely associated with D'Aubuisson and his cabal and may well
> have been implicated in the assassination."
>
> Consistently, the U.S. media has adopted the "...central myth contrived by
> the government, and contrived its reporting and interpretation to its
> basic premises: the 'moderate government' that we support is plagued by
> the terrorism of the extremists of the left and right, and is unable to
> bring it under control. The U.S. government and the media understood very
> well that the violence was overwhelmingly the responsibility of both the
> U.S.- backed security forces, which were, and remain, the real power in
> the country, and the paramilitary network they created to terrorize the
> population. But this truth was inexpressible. To this day the media
> maintain the central myth of earlier years, long after having conceded
> quietly that it was a complete fabrication."
>
> MURDER OF THE FOUR U.S. CHURCHWOMEN
>
> Witnesses who found the grave said it was about five feet deep. One woman
> had been shot in the face, another in the breast. Two of the women were
> found with their blood-stained underpants around their ankles (Dec. 5,
> 1980).
>
> "On December 2, 1980, four U.S. churchwomen working in El Salvador --
> Maura Clarke, Jean Donovan, Ita Ford, and Dorothy Kazel -- were seized,
> raped, and murdered by members of the Salvadoran National Guard. This
> crime was extremely inconvenient to the Carter administration, which was
> supporting the Salvadoran junta as an alleged 'reformist' government and
> trying to convince the public and Congress that that government was worthy
> of aid."
>
> "A commission headed by William P. Rogers was quickly sent to El Salvador
> to inquire into the facts... The commission reported that it had 'no
> evidence suggesting that any senior Salvadoran authorities were implicated
> in the murders themselves,' but there is no indication that it ascertained
> this by any route beyond asking the authorities whether they were
> involved... [The commission] proposed no independent investigation, merely
> urging the Salvadoran junta to pursue the case vigorously. It noted that
> the junta promised that the truth 'would be pursued wherever it led
> anywhere in the country at any level.'"
>
> "With the arrival of the Reagan administration, the already badly
> compromised concern to find the culprits diminished further...[The new
> Secretary of State] Alexander Haig stated before the House Committee on
> Foreign Affairs that the evidence 'led one to believe' that the four women
> were killed trying to run a roadblock -- a shameless lie that was soon
> acknowledged as such by the State Department." The Reagan ambassador to
> the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick suggested that "...the four women were
> political activists for the 'Frente' -- as with Haig's statement, an
> outright lie..."
>
> "The difference between the murder of the four women and the thousands of
> others uninvestigated and unresolved in El Salvador was that the families
> of these victims were Americans and pressed the case, eventually
> succeeding in getting Congress to focus on these particular murders..."
>
> Details. When the bodies of these four churchwomen were found this news
> merited only a back-page item in the Times . The "...accounts of the
> violence done to the four murdered women were very succinct, omitted many
> details, and were not repeated after the initial disclosures. No attempt
> was made to reconstruct the scene with its agony and brutal violence."
>
> For example, consider the Time account: [After giving the names of the
> victims] "Two of the women had been raped before being shot in the back of
> the head."
>
> Contrast the above succinct account with the Raymond Bonner's account from
> "Weakness and Deceit" [note: I am unable to determine if this is a book or
> a magazine article]:
>
> In the crude grave, stacked on top of each other were the bodies of four
> women. The first hauled out of the hole was Jean Donovan, twenty-seven
> years old, a lay missionary from Cleveland. Her face had been blown away
> by a high calibre bullet that had been fired into the back of her head.
> Her pants were unzipped; her underwear twisted around her ankles. When
> area peasants found her, she was nude from the waist down. They had tried
> to replace the garments before burial. Then came Dorothy Kazel, a
> forty-year-old Ursuline nun also from Cleveland. At the bottom of the pit
> were Maryknoll nuns Ita Ford, forty, and Maura Clarke, forty-nine, both
> from New York. All the women had been executed at close range. The
> peasants who found the women said that one had her underpants stuffed in
> her mouth; another's had been tied over her eyes. All had been raped.
>
> "We may note the failure of Time and the New York Times to mention the
> bruises... the failure to mention the destruction of Jean Donovan's face;
> the suppression of the degrading and degraded use of the nuns' underwear;
> the failure to give the account of the peasants who found the bodies.
> These and other details given by Bonner and suppressed by Time and the New
> York Times (and also Newsweek and CBS News) add emotional force and
> poignancy to the scene."
>
> The press largely ignored or suppressed the funerals in the United States
> of these four American churchwomen. The New York Times "...gave a tiny,
> back-page, UPI account of the memorial service for Sister Dorothy Kazel."
>
> Ambassador Kirkpatrick rationalized the United State's indirect complicity
> in these murders by indicating that the victims may have been asking for
> it. As Newsweek observed (Dec. 15, 1980), "The violence in El Salvador is
> likely to focus with increasing ferocity on the Roman Catholic Church.
> Many priests and nuns advocate reform, and some of them are militant
> leftists. Such sentiments mean trouble, even for moderate members of the
> clergy." The Newsweek article nowhere mentions that it was the U.S.-backed
> government which initiated and carried out the bulk of the murdering.
>
> In the case of the killing of these four women "...the media found it
> extremely difficult to locate Salvadoran government involvement in the
> murders, even with evidence staring them in the face. Their investigatory
> zeal was modest, and they were happy to follow the leads of ('Trust me')
> Duarte and U.S. officials as the case unfolded. They played dumb."
>
> "Gradually, so much evidence seeped out to show that the women had been
> murdered by members of the National Guard that the involvement of
> government forces could no longer be evaded. A two-part process of 'damage
> limitation' ensued, expounded by Salvadoran and U.S. officials and
> faithfully reflected in the media."
>
> "The most important goal of the immediate damage-containment process was
> to stifle any serious investigation of the responsibility of the officials
> of the Salvadoran government. The Salvadoran strategy was foot-dragging
> from beginning to end... [There was] little doubt that the responsibility
> for the crime went high. The U.S. official strategy... was to get the
> low-level killers tried and convicted -- necessary to vindicate the system
> of justice in El Salvador, at least to the extent of keeping the dollars
> flowing from Congress -- while protecting the 'reformers' at the top."
>
> The U.S. government "...engaged in a systematic cover-up -- of both the
> Salvadoran cover-up and the facts of the case. The U.S. mass media, while
> briefly noting the Salvadoran stonewalling, failed to call attention to
> the equally important lies and suppressions of their own government. As we
> have pointed out, both the Carter and Reagan administrations put
> protection of its client above the quest for justice for four U.S.
> citizens murdered by agents of that government."
>
> "A second form of official U.S. participation in the cover-up was a
> refusal to make public information on the Salvadoran investigation and
> evidence uncovered by the United States itself. The Rogers report was
> released belatedly, in a version that edited out the original report's
> statement about the sad state of the Salvadoran system of justice... [A
> later report] was kept under wraps for a long time, again apparently
> because it had some serious criticism of the Salvadoran judicial process
> that would have interfered with Reagan administration plans to claim
> progress..."
>
> "The families of the victims and their attorneys regularly found the U.S.
> government unwilling to release information on the case."
>
> (Edward Herman/Noam Chomsky, "Manufacturing Consent")
REPREHENSIBLE, DISGUSTING, HORRIBLE!
Hunter Watson
Louis N Proyect
> REPREHENSIBLE, DISGUSTING, HORRIBLE!
>
Now we are getting somewhere. Anglo-British imperialism certainly does put
Stalin to shame and may be called "reprehensible, disgusting and
horrible."
I have tried to explain this in historical and economic terms rather than
in this moralizing fashion, but since you are rather feeble when it comes
to historical and economic analysis, this will have to do, I suppose.
Louis P.
Chris Faatz
: REPREHENSIBLE, DISGUSTING, HORRIBLE!
: Hunter Watson
It's much worse than that, of course. Recently, the escalation of violence
in Mexico has been directed, in large part, against religious base
communities in solidarity with the Zapatistas--the Bees, a nonviolent
group, was the target of a particularly heinous attack.
Interestingly, the quotes Louis use also underline a deeper and stranger
"logic" on the left--the animosity toward, or unwillingness to recognize
and accept, the validity of the religious community's quest for social
justice. Many CISPES supporters and activists were so out of their
religious convictions. The Ploughshares activists come to mind. And,
currently, among the strongest advocates of Mumia Abu Jamal, are members
of the Quixote Center, a liberation theologist group on the East Coast,
and the Bruderhof, a representative of which Mumia has chosen as his
spiritual confidant, despite his not being Christian by any means.
C
Chris Faatz
: > REPREHENSIBLE, DISGUSTING, HORRIBLE!
: >
: Now we are getting somewhere. Anglo-British imperialism certainly does put
: Stalin to shame and may be called "reprehensible, disgusting and
: horrible."
: I have tried to explain this in historical and economic terms rather than
: in this moralizing fashion, but since you are rather feeble when it comes
: to historical and economic analysis, this will have to do, I suppose.
If I drop the latter paragraph, I'm in agreement with Louis on this one.
But, you already know that, Hunter.
Chris
Oh yeah--<g>
Chris Faatz
Not that I'm aware of. I'll e-mail them and try to get them to post the
report. It's typically sensationalist, but worth reading.
Chris
--
Louis N Proyect
> Interestingly, the quotes Louis use also underline a deeper and stranger
> "logic" on the left--the animosity toward, or unwillingness to recognize
> and accept, the validity of the religious community's quest for social
> justice. Many CISPES supporters and activists were so out of their
> religious convictions. The Ploughshares activists come to mind. And,
There is deep respect on the left for Maryknoll nuns, the Berrigans, etc.
What I have no use for is your using the fact that you burn some incense
to Buddha or keep a plaster Jesus on your dashboard as a club against
Marxists on an Internet newsgroup. The religious activists I got to know
in Nicaragua never took the liberties that you do. You use your fucking
two-bit piety on this newsgroup the way that Whittaker Chambers used to
use his Christianity after he broke with the CP, as acid to throw in the
face of the left.
Louis P.
Stephen R. Diamond
<cfa...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
> YOu have fervor, knowledge, and commitment. Hunter has ten times the
> integrity you have.
Only if you deem a substantially negative number greater than zero.
Were you absent (In church, perhaps) when Bill Magdalene PROVED Watson a liar?
Stephen R. Diamond
Stephen R. Diamond
<cfa...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
> Hunter's integrity lies in 1) the conviction of his ideas, 2) his
> willingness to express them in an overly hostile environment, and, 3)
> his refusal to use the methods of his opponents--slander, namecalling,
> and innuendo
<CUT>
> As to Buddhism: I'm not normal there either. Your best bet is to find
> the Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship site. If you can't find
> that, Stephen Batchelor's excellent and stimulating book, _Buddhism
> Without Beliefs_ (meaning without reincarnation, demigods, etc.) pretty
> much sums me up.
Of course I am unfamiliar with the Fellowship, but I'm interested in how
you think about Buddhism without belief. As a psychological doctrine
Buddhism espouses ridding oneself of "attachments,"as the prime source of
human mental misery.
Yet, you applaud Mr. Watson for his (wrong) convictions, and his
willingness to express them where they are not wanted. You applaud Mr.
Watson for his attachment to his convictions, an attachment not only
emotionally combersonme to him, but one which leads him to act in
opposition to ordinary ethics. He is willing to lie for the sake of his
convictions, as Bill Magdalene, an objective observer, established.
As to avoiding "namecalling," you have not shown any relationship to
integrity. Namecalling and personal attacks cannot consistently be
condemned by someone like you, who believes the important core of
political differences differences have to do with personal moral
characteristics, not as you wrote elsewhere phony "ideology.". Dealing
with the person rather than the ideology he advocates, it would follow,
get to the root of the issue. You do often attack personalities, followed
by a retraction, showing how you probably have not thought this matter
through.
Stephen R. Diamond
Chris Faatz
using that spongy two-sided tape.
The rest of the stuff you're writing is just as silly as all the other
stuff you've written about me. You don't like the fact that I talk with
Hunter in a cordial manner. Oh well. I'll burn my plastic Jesus in prayer
for you <vbg>
Louis N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu> wrote:
: Louis P.
--
Chris Faatz
: In article <9QcH1.6192$f01.4...@news.teleport.com>, Chris Faatz
: <cfa...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
: > Hunter's integrity lies in 1) the conviction of his ideas, 2) his
: > willingness to express them in an overly hostile environment, and, 3)
: > his refusal to use the methods of his opponents--slander, namecalling,
: > and innuendo
: <CUT>
: > As to Buddhism: I'm not normal there either. Your best bet is to find
: > the Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship site. If you can't find
: > that, Stephen Batchelor's excellent and stimulating book, _Buddhism
: > Without Beliefs_ (meaning without reincarnation, demigods, etc.) pretty
: > much sums me up.
: Of course I am unfamiliar with the Fellowship, but I'm interested in how
: you think about Buddhism without belief. As a psychological doctrine
: Buddhism espouses ridding oneself of "attachments,"as the prime source of
: human mental misery.
Ridding oneself of the craving for this or that, Stephen, of *attachment*
per se. You're absolutely correct.
: Yet, you applaud Mr. Watson for his (wrong) convictions, and his
: willingness to express them where they are not wanted. You applaud Mr.
: Watson for his attachment to his convictions, an attachment not only
: emotionally combersonme to him, but one which leads him to act in
: opposition to ordinary ethics. He is willing to lie for the sake of his
: convictions, as Bill Magdalene, an objective observer, established.
Would you acquaint me with Bill's thread? I applaud Hunter for his
conviction in his convictions. I also believe that he's much more open
to "changing his mind," as a certain Buddhist wordplay joke would have
it, than most others on this group.
: As to avoiding "namecalling," you have not shown any relationship to
: integrity. Namecalling and personal attacks cannot consistently be
: condemned by someone like you, who believes the important core of
: political differences differences have to do with personal moral
: characteristics, not as you wrote elsewhere phony "ideology."
I believe that the important thing is the free flow of ideas, the
contention in practice, and the integrity of the individual and of
the organization(s) s/he chooses to join. I actually don't believe in
"personal" moral characteristics; I believe (Louis, you can *really*
get me for this one) in universals. Personal choice is personal choice.
Morality is a universal construct, human or not, within which we as a
species have found it most felicitous to operate.
Shades of Ethical Culture.
: Dealing
: with the person rather than the ideology he advocates, it would follow,
: get to the root of the issue. You do often attack personalities, followed
: by a retraction, showing how you probably have not thought this matter
: through.
It's a good insight, and I thank you for it (sincerely, believe it or
not). Problem is, the stuff I aspire to is not something I normally
attain. My temper and general muddleheadedness--something you've
frequently, and correctly, commented on--get in the way.
Still, I try to take the person as the person, and I try and see the
potential for the good in each and every one. I'm not always successful.
Dorothy Day and the CW movement referred to it as a "personalist" approach
to politics. In Quakerism, it's the recognition of that of God--or however
you want to put it--in all persons. Same in Buddhism, although there it's
the inherent unrecognized Buddhanature in everyone.
Batchelor's book really is quite good.
C
Chris Faatz
: <cfa...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
Yes, and I'd like to see it. Tell me the thread name, and I'll pull it
up on Deja News.
Marc Viglielmo
Chris Faatz wrote:
> Hunter H. Watson <hwa...@portup.com> wrote:
>
> : REPREHENSIBLE, DISGUSTING, HORRIBLE!
>
> : Hunter Watson
>
> It's much worse than that, of course. Recently, the escalation of violence
> in Mexico has been directed, in large part, against religious base
> communities in solidarity with the Zapatistas--the Bees, a nonviolent
> group, was the target of a particularly heinous attack.
>
> Interestingly, the quotes Louis use also underline a deeper and stranger
> "logic" on the left--the animosity toward, or unwillingness to recognize
> and accept, the validity of the religious community's quest for social
> justice. Many CISPES supporters and activists were so out of their
> religious convictions. The Ploughshares activists come to mind. And,
> currently, among the strongest advocates of Mumia Abu Jamal, are members
> of the Quixote Center, a liberation theologist group on the East Coast,
> and the Bruderhof, a representative of which Mumia has chosen as his
> spiritual confidant, despite his not being Christian by any means.
>
> C
Faatz, have you no shame? Do you consider the Nation of Islam to be part
of the religious community? When I tried to inform you that Minister
Farrakhan speaks at Black churches, you ignorantly replied that churches rent
out space to all kinds of groups, broadcasting the fact that you don't even
know that Farrakhan is invited by Black ministers to give the sermon at their
churches (by the way, do you ever refer to Minister Farrakhan using his title,
"Minister", or is your hatred for him so great that you can't bring yourself
to accord him even that much respect?). Anyone who reads the listings in
their local newspaper for television and radio programs can find out when the
NOI's programs are broadcast in their area, but white deists
(Christian/Buddhists?) such as yourself can't be bothered with finding out
what really goes on in the Black community. I guess your respect for
religious traditions is selective. And you wonder why I might view this
selectivity as racist. Your hypocrisy is astounding.
Louis N Proyect
> I believe that the important thing is the free flow of ideas, the
> contention in practice, and the integrity of the individual and of
> the organization(s) s/he chooses to join. I actually don't believe in
> "personal" moral characteristics; I believe (Louis, you can *really*
> get me for this one) in universals. Personal choice is personal choice.
> Morality is a universal construct, human or not, within which we as a
> species have found it most felicitous to operate.
Yeah, the problem is that these beliefs have zero to do with Trotsky or
Marxism. We've got a newsgroup that is flooded with people who have no
business here, from sky-pilot socialists like yourself, to Oliver
North-clone Hunter Watson, to SLP'ers, to neo-Nazi "leftists" like
Gardner. I'd like to see you all get lost.
I wouldn't dream of participating in a Christian socialist newsgroup. All
that phoney religious crap would make me sick to my stomach. The best
thing that the Bolsheviks ever did was marginalize organized religion.
Then you got the SLP'ers spamming their crap from a hundred year old
newspaper that has zero influence in US politics. And Watson--what a
joke--telling us to "Remember the Terror". What fucking country does he
think he lives in? Madagascar? The United States and the other great
"democracy" Great Britain have been terrorizing people for hundreds of
years. Stalin's problem was that he wasn't ruthless enough. If he read his
Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt more carefully, he could have kept the
unruly Ukrainians in order with more efficiency.
It is a shame that a newsgroup that is devoted in some fashion to one of
the greatest revolutionaries of the 20th century has to be disoriented by
people who have absolutely no interest in his ideas. I myself would not
participate in a newsgroup set up for people like Hunter Watson. I know of
at least two or three alt.fan.cia type newsgroups but why would I want to
talk to people who think it's a "neat idea" to rape and torture unarmed
campesinos.
The plain truth is that some of the most important Marxist discussion
taking place on the Internet today is on moderated mailing-lists like mine
and Doug's. Hunter Watson showed up on mine and he got the boot in 24
hours. There was nobody who wanted him around. As somebody put it, they
don't mind arguing with an intelligent right-winger (there are several on
Doug Henwood's LBO-Talk list), but Watson was deemed an intellectually
inferior redbaiter.
Louis P.
Stephen R. Diamond
<Pine.GSO.3.95qL.98090...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu>, Louis
N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> The plain truth is that some of the most important Marxist discussion
> taking place on the Internet today is on moderated mailing-lists like mine
> and Doug's. Hunter Watson showed up on mine and he got the boot in 24
> hours. There was nobody who wanted him around. As somebody put it, they
> don't mind arguing with an intelligent right-winger (there are several on
> Doug Henwood's LBO-Talk list), but Watson was deemed an intellectually
> inferior redbaiter.
You most definitely have a point. How can a for now super-minority
tendency of thought survive its permeation by an outside world and its
hugely superior social weight? There MUST be a gatekeeper. Otherwise, you
have an apst dominated by Hunter Watson, merely because his services as an
attorney are wanted only a few hours a day. Got to have something to do to
fill up the time.
Those who favor unmoderated Trotskyist ngs would also oppose democratic
centralism.
Stephen R. Diamond
Stephen R. Diamond
<cfa...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
Accusing Watson of Lying - Credentials vs. Evidence
1997/04/21