Holocaust Museum Shooter: Christian-Hating Socialist

[Agent Ferris]

This is nothing new. In certain circles the extreme left/ultra right/militant Islamist convergence has been known for quite sometime. For example leftist icon Noam Chomsky's defense of Robert Faurisson who is a white nationalist holocaust denier as a "sort of apolitical liberal" and that he has seen no evidence that Faurisson is a neo-Nazi or an anti-semite,(1,2) or Chomsky's publishing one of his books for the white nationalist holocaust negationist publisher known as Spartacus Publishing, an offshoot of the La Vieille Taupe group, saving it from bankruptcy(3,4), and of course Chomsky's writing of articles for the Journal for Historical Review which is a white nationalist holocaust denial journal.(5,6,7) And who can forget Bin Laden's glowing endorsement of Chomsky as "among one of the most capable of those from your own side" or of course the shared admiration from both the ultra right and the ultra left for organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah?(8,9,10,11) Or of course the recent statement by Reverend Reich... I mean Wright, that Obama won't speak to him because "them Jews" won't let him.(12) It seems that the extremes on all sides of the political spectrum have some how managed to fold into each other in a sort of weird mix of anti-semitic, anti-capitalist, extremist cadre of violent revolutionary extremism with shared goals, which; conventional wisdom would dictate should be diametrically opposed to one another's ideology and if we ignore this seemingly new congruence of extremism we do so only at our own peril.

1. Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression, by Noam Chomsky

2. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Faurisson]Robert Faurisson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


3. Chomsky, Noam Responses inedites Paris. Spartacus 1984.

4. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Vieille_Taupe]La Vieille Taupe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


5. Noam Chomsky. "All Denials of Free Speech Undercut a Democratic Society," The Journal of Historical Review, volume 7 no. 1 (Spring 1986), p. 123.

6. Noam Chomsky. The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, & the Palestinians. Reviewed by L. A. Rollins. The Journal of Historical Review, volume 6 no. 2 (Summer 1985), p. 240.

7. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Historical_Review]Journal of Historical Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


8. Bin Laden Endorses Chomsky | Jewcy.com

9. AFP: Galloway gives cars and cash to Hamas in Gaza

10. George Galloway: Hizbollah is right to fight Zionist terror|29Jul06|Socialist Worker

11. Marooned In Marin: Hamas, Hezbollah (& David Duke) Supporters Rally In DC Against Israel

12. Obama and 'Them Jews': Not the Wright Stuff - Greta Van Susteren | On The Record With Greta - FOXNews.com

Here's the main article:

Holocaust Museum Shooter: Christian-Hating Socialist By: Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, June 11, 2009

FrontPage Magazine - Holocaust Museum Shooter: Christian-Hating Socialist

And another from a blog but still an interesting read:

James von Brunn was an Admitted Socialist with Connections to Noam Chomsky

James von Brunn was an Admitted Socialist with Connections to Noam Chomsky Red Alerts

 

[DarkWizard12]

This is nothing new. In certain circles the extreme left/ultra right/militant Islamist convergence has been known for quite sometime. For example leftist icon Noam Chomsky's defense of Robert Faurisson who is a white nationalist holocaust denier as a "sort of apolitical liberal" and that he has seen no evidence that Faurisson is a neo-Nazi or an anti-semite,(1,2) or Chomsky's publishing one of his books for the white nationalist holocaust negationist publisher known as Spartacus Publishing, an offshoot of the La Vieille Taupe group, saving it from bankruptcy(3,4), and of course Chomsky's writing of articles for the Journal for Historical Review which is a white nationalist holocaust denial journal.(5,6,7) And who can forget Bin Laden's glowing endorsement of Chomsky as "among one of the most capable of those from your own side" or of course the shared admiration from both the ultra right and the ultra left for organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah?(8,9,10,11) Or of course the recent statement by Reverend Reich... I mean Wright, that Obama won't speak to him because "them Jews" won't let him.(12) It seems that the extremes on all sides of the political spectrum have some how managed to fold into each other in a sort of weird mix of anti-semitic, anti-capitalist, extremist cadre of violent revolutionary extremism with shared goals, which; conventional wisdom would dictate should be diametrically opposed to one another's ideology.


1. Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression, by Noam Chomsky

2. Robert Faurisson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


3. Chomsky, Noam Responses inedites Paris. Spartacus 1984.

4. La Vieille Taupe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


5. Noam Chomsky. "All Denials of Free Speech Undercut a Democratic Society," The Journal of Historical Review, volume 7 no. 1 (Spring 1986), p. 123.

6. Noam Chomsky. The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, & the Palestinians. Reviewed by L. A. Rollins. The Journal of Historical Review, volume 6 no. 2 (Summer 1985), p. 240.

7. Journal of Historical Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


8. Bin Laden Endorses Chomsky | Jewcy.com

9. AFP: Galloway gives cars and cash to Hamas in Gaza

10. George Galloway: Hizbollah is right to fight Zionist terror|29Jul06|Socialist Worker

11. Marooned In Marin: Hamas, Hezbollah (& David Duke) Supporters Rally In DC Against Israel

12. Obama and 'Them Jews': Not the Wright Stuff - Greta Van Susteren | On The Record With Greta - FOXNews.com

Here's the main article:



And another from a blog but still an interesting read:

Noam Chomsky? Are you serious? My class's entire debate team absolutely REVERS him. This is startling indeed....

 

[Agent Ferris]

Noam Chomsky? Are you serious? My class's entire debate team absolutely REVERS him. This is startling indeed....

He's revered by many on the left, Chomsky is careful to keep his American audience in the dark by only associating with foreign Neo-Nazi's and white nationalist organizations. These links are much better known in Europe especially France.

 

[Mira]

This is nothing new. In certain circles the extreme left/ultra right/militant Islamist convergence has been known for quite sometime. For example leftist icon Noam Chomsky's defense of Robert Faurisson who is a white nationalist holocaust denier as a "sort of apolitical liberal" and that he has seen no evidence that Faurisson is a neo-Nazi or an anti-semite,(1,2) or Chomsky's publishing one of his books for the white nationalist holocaust negationist publisher known as Spartacus Publishing, an offshoot of the La Vieille Taupe group, saving it from bankruptcy(3,4), and of course Chomsky's writing of articles for the Journal for Historical Review which is a white nationalist holocaust denial journal.(5,6,7) And who can forget Bin Laden's glowing endorsement of Chomsky as "among one of the most capable of those from your own side" or of course the shared admiration from both the ultra right and the ultra left for organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah?(8,9,10,11) Or of course the recent statement by Reverend Reich... I mean Wright, that Obama won't speak to him because "them Jews" won't let him.(12) It seems that the extremes on all sides of the political spectrum have some how managed to fold into each other in a sort of weird mix of anti-semitic, anti-capitalist, extremist cadre of violent revolutionary extremism with shared goals, which; conventional wisdom would dictate should be diametrically opposed to one another's ideology and if we ignore this seemingly new congruence of extremism we do so only at our own peril.

1. Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression, by Noam Chomsky

2. Robert Faurisson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


3. Chomsky, Noam Responses inedites Paris. Spartacus 1984.

4. La Vieille Taupe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


5. Noam Chomsky. "All Denials of Free Speech Undercut a Democratic Society," The Journal of Historical Review, volume 7 no. 1 (Spring 1986), p. 123.

6. Noam Chomsky. The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, & the Palestinians. Reviewed by L. A. Rollins. The Journal of Historical Review, volume 6 no. 2 (Summer 1985), p. 240.

7. Journal of Historical Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


8. Bin Laden Endorses Chomsky | Jewcy.com

9. AFP: Galloway gives cars and cash to Hamas in Gaza

10. George Galloway: Hizbollah is right to fight Zionist terror|29Jul06|Socialist Worker

11. Marooned In Marin: Hamas, Hezbollah (& David Duke) Supporters Rally In DC Against Israel

12. Obama and 'Them Jews': Not the Wright Stuff - Greta Van Susteren | On The Record With Greta - FOXNews.com

Here's the main article:



And another from a blog but still an interesting read:

You have provided the poison and the antidot which is right here:

Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression, by Noam Chomsky

 

[Khayembii Communique]

This guy was actually a neo-Nazi, so I don't know why you're calling him a socialist.

 

[Mira]

This guy was actually a neo-Nazi, so I don't know why you're calling him a socialist.

Noam Chomski néo-Nazi ? :roll:
What are you basing your allegations on ?

 

[Mira]

To me the only valid link on this thread is the one that comes directly from Chomsky's own website. Go to the homepages of the rest and judge for yourselves.

It always amuses me how people like Chomsky are closely watched. One false move and people who dislike him start jumping up and down all over him trying to paint his entire career in black. I find that quite childish if you ask me.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Noam Chomski néo-Nazi ?

No, the Holocaust Museum Shooter. See thread title.

 

[Agent Ferris]

You have provided the poison and the antidot which is right here:

Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression, by Noam Chomsky

I provided that article it was in fact from my very first citation I suggest you read it:

s it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort. In support of the charge of anti-Semitism, I have been informed that Faurisson is remembered by some schoolmates as having expressed anti-Semitic sentiments in the 1940s, and as having written a letter that some interpret as having anti-Semitic implications at the time of the Algerian war. I am a little surprised that serious people should put such charges forth -- even in private -- as a sufficient basis for castigating someone as a long-time and well-known anti-Semitic. I am aware of nothing in the public record to support such charges.

Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression, by Noam Chomsky

Furthermore; apparently Chomsky sees nothing anti-semitic about Faurrisson's work or holocaust denial in general:

I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work." (quoted in Noam Chomsky's Search for the Truth)

 

[Agent Ferris]

To me the only valid link on this thread is the one that comes directly from Chomsky's own website. Go to the homepages of the rest and judge for yourselves.

It always amuses me how people like Chomsky are closely watched. One false move and people who dislike him start jumping up and down all over him trying to paint his entire career in black. I find that quite childish if you ask me.

Um in that link he refers to Faurrison who is an avid holocaust denier and blatant anti-semite as an "apolitical liberal" and sees no evidence that Faurrison is an anti-semite or a neo-nazi. In fact Chomsky would go on to elaborate that he sees nothing anti-semitic about holocaust denial in general:

I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work." (quoted in Noam Chomsky's Search for the Truth)

:roll:

And again Chomsky has had his works published by Spartucus Publishing a holocaust negationist publishing house and he has allowed his articles to appear in the Journal for Historical Review a holocaust negationist journal.

These things really do speak for themselves, this defense goes well beyond the defense of free speech into the defense of holocaust denial itself.

 

[Renae]

Noam Chomsky? Are you serious? My class's entire debate team absolutely REVERS him. This is startling indeed....

Chomsky is an idiot. Anyone that revers that man really needs to reconsider living.

 

[Agent Ferris]

This guy was actually a neo-Nazi, so I don't know why you're calling him a socialist.

He called himself a socialist. A western socialist but a socialist none the less.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Can someone please explain how James Von Brunn and Ferris' whining about Chomsky are related?

He called himself a socialist. A western socialist but a socialist none the less.

And? Nazi's regularly call themselves national socialists, but that does not mean that they have anything in common with socialism itself; they are fascists, not socialists.

 

[Mira]

I provided that article it was in fact from my very first citation I suggest you read it:



Furthermore; apparently Chomsky sees nothing anti-semitic about Faurrisson's work or holocaust denial in general:

I DID read it because you provided it. I sugest that you read it again.

 

[Mira]

Chomsky is an idiot. Anyone that revers that man really needs to reconsider living.

I might as well shoot myself in the head right away then, or maybe hang myself from a ceiling fan ?

 

[Don't Tase Me Bro]

Can someone please explain how James Von Brunn and Ferris' whining about Chomsky are related?



And? Nazi's regularly call themselves national socialists, but that does not mean that they have anything in common with socialism itself; they are fascists, not socialists.

Socialists can be just as fascist as anyone else. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Renae]

ON COMMUNISM...
“One might argue, at least I would argue, that council communism... is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society.”
(Government in the Future [Seven Stories Press, 2005], p27)
ON POVERTY...
“if we ever get anything like a kind of just society, things like my standard of living may very well not exist. In that sense, there will be, I think, material deprivation in some manner for a large part of the population. And I think there ought to be.”
(Interview, Black Rose, No. 1, 1974)
ON REVOLUTION...
“I suppose that, at some point, the ruling class will simply strike back by force, and there has to be defense against that force, and that probably means violent revolution.”
(Interview, Black Rose, No. 1, 1974)
ON TERROR...
“If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.”
(Alexander Klein, ed., Dissent, Power and Confrontation [McGraw-Hill, 1971], p119)
ON DICTATORSHIPS...
— Maoist China
“But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are really quite admirable... a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry...”
(Alexander Klein, ed., Dissent, Power and Confrontation [McGraw-Hill, 1971], pp117-8)
— Stalinist North Vietnam
“I would like to express the great joy that we feel in your accomplishments... Your heroism reveals the capabilities of the human spirit and human will.”
(Radio Hanoi, April 14, 1970)
— Pol Pot’s Cambodia
“the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives. It is striking that the crucial facts rarely appear in the chorus of condemnations.”
(After the Cataclysm [South End Press, 1979], p160)
ON AMERICA...
“Such facts as these... raise the question whether what is needed in the United States today is dissent or denazification... I myself believe that what is needed is a kind of denazification.”
(Ethics, October 1968)
ON REPUBLICANS...
“The new Republicans represent a kind of proto-fascism. There’s a real sadism. They want to go for the jugular. Anybody who doesn’t meet their standards, they want to kill, not just oppose, but destroy.”
(The Progressive, March 1996)
ON ZIONISM...
“Hitler’s conceptions have struck a responsive chord in current Zionist commentary.”
(Fateful Triangle [rev. ed., Pluto Press, 1999], p208)
ON JUDAISM...
“In the Jewish community, the Orthodox rabbinate imposes its interpretation of religious law... Were similar principles to apply to Jews elsewhere, we would not hesitate to condemn this revival of the Nuremberg laws.”
(Foreword, Sabri Jiryis, The Arabs in Israel [Monthly Review Press, 1976], p viii)
ON ISRAEL...
“Israel’s ‘secret weapon’ ... is that it may behave in the manner of what have sometimes been called ‘crazy states’ in the international affairs literature... eventuating in a final solution from which few will escape.”
(Fateful Triangle [rev. ed., Pluto Press, 1999], pp468-9)
ON JEWS...
“The Jewish community here is deeply totalitarian. They do not want democracy, they do not want freedom.”
(Interview, Shmate: A Journal of Progressive Jewish Thought, Summer 1988)
ON ANTISEMITISM...
“Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population... privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why antisemitism is becoming an issue.”
(Variant, Scotland, Winter 2002)
ON THE HOLOCAUST...
“I see no antisemitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust.”
(Quadrant, Australia, October 1981)
ON THE COLD WAR...
“in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”
(Letter, in Alexander Cockburn, The Golden Age Is In Us [Verso, 1995], pp149-151)
ON 9/11...
“for the first time in history the victims are returning the blow to the motherland.”
(La Jornada, Mexico, September 15, 2001)

The Wit and Wisdom of Noam Chomsky


For those of you that think Chomsky is someone worth listening too...

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Socialists can be just as fascist as anyone else. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Then you do not know what socialism or fascism are.

 

[Agent Ferris]

I DID read it because you provided it. I sugest that you read it again.

Ya I did read it that's why I posted it, he referred to the neo-nazi Faurrisson as an apolitical liberal and sees no evidence for him being anti-semitic, and would later go on to say that he sees nothing anti-semitic about holocaust denial in general. And once again Chomsky has allowed his articles to appear in the holocaust negationist Journal for Historical Review, and he had one of his books published by the holocaust negationist publisher Spartacus which is an offshoot of the La Vieille Taupe group.

 

[Mira]

No, the Holocaust Museum Shooter. See thread title.

Ah, sorry.

The OP however is trying to call Chomsky a néo-Nazi

 

[Khayembii Communique]

The OP however is trying to call Chomsky a néo-Nazi

Yes, I just don't see that as worth addressing; any level-headed person (Ferris obviously does not fit into this category) would realize how ridiculous that accusation is, if not only because the fact that Chomsky is a Jew.

EDIT: Also, we can go to Chomsky himself to see what he actually meant in the Faurisson Affair.

1. Is it true that you stated that you saw "no anti-semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust"? Did you mean this in a purely formal sense? In any other way, it seems strange to me that you wouldn't at least suspect the motives of someone who does seriously attempt to deny that event.

Now your first question. The "statement" to which you refer is a distortion of something that I wrote in a personal letter 11 years ago, when I was asked whether the fact that a person denies the existence of gas chambers does not prove that he is an anti-Semite. I wrote back what every sane person knows: no, of course it does not. A person might believe that Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews in some other way without being an anti-Semite. Since the point is trivial and disputed by no one, I do not know why we are discussing it.

In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue.

The point is considerably more general. Denial of monstrous atrocities, whatever their scale, does not in itself suffice to prove that those who deny them are racists vis-a-vis the victims. I am sure you agree with this point, which everyone constantly accepts. Thus, in the journal of the American Jewish Congress, a representative of ASI writes that stories about Hitler's anti-gypsy genocide are an "exploded fiction." In fact, as one can learn from the scholarly literature (also Wiesenthal, Vidal-Naquet, etc.), Hitler's treatment of the gypsies was on a par with his slaughter of Jews. But we do not conclude from these facts alone that the AJC and ASI are anti-gypsy racists. Similarly, numerous scholars deny that the Armenian genocide took place, and some people, like Elie Wiesel, make extraordinary efforts to prevent any commemoration or even discussion of it. Until the last few years, despite overwhelming evidence before their eyes, scholars denied the slaughter of some 10 million native Americans in North America and perhaps 100 million on the [South American] continent. Recent studies of US opinion show that the median estimate of Vietnamese casualties [resulting from the Vietnam War] is 100,000, about 1/20 of the official figure and probably 1\30 or 1\40 of the actual figure. The reason is that that is the fare they have been fed by the propaganda apparatus (media, journals of opinion, intellectuals, etc., "scholarship," etc.) for 20 years. We (at least I) do not conclude from that fact alone that virtually the whole country consists of anti-Vietnamese racists. I leave it to you to draw the obvious analogies.

In these and numerous other cases, one needs more evidence before concluding that the individuals are racists. Thus in the case of Wiesel, it is quite likely that he is merely following the instructions of the Israeli government, which doesn't want Turkey embarrassed. In short, denial of even the most horrendous slaughter does not in itself establish the charge of racism, as everyone agrees. Since that is obvious and undeniable, one naturally questions the motives of those who deny the truism selectively, and produce charges such as those you relay.

You ask whether one wouldn't at least suspect the motives of someone who denies genocide (the Holocaust, in particular). Of course. Thus, I do suspect the motives of Wiesel, Bernard Lewis, the anthropological profession, the American Jewish Congress and ASI, Faurisson, Western intellectuals who systematically and almost universally downplay the atrocities of their own states, and people who deny genocide and atrocities generally. But I do not automatically conclude that they are racists; nor do you. Rather, we ask what leads them to these horrendous conclusions. There are many different answers, as we all agree. Since the points are again obvious, a rational person will proceed also to question the motives of those who pretend to deny them, when it suits their particular political purposes. In this respect too the Faurisson affair is far from "settled," as you put it; in fact, the issues have yet to be addressed. In fact, they will never be addressed, because they reveal too much about Western intellectual culture.

Let me repeat. You open by saying that you thought the Faurisson issue is settled. You are incorrect. It has yet even to be addressed, either the major issue that Western intellectuals are desperate to suppress for the obvious reason that it sheds too much light on their actual commitments; or the marginal issue of my own defense of traditional libertarian values that are utterly scorned in Europe, if they are even understood, which I doubt.

Sincerely yours,

Noam Chomsky​

Chomsky

 

[Mira]

Yes, I just don't see that as worth addressing; any level-headed person (Ferris obviously does not fit into this category) would realize how ridiculous that accusation is, if not only because the fact that Chomsky is a Jew.

And he posted his thread in the "Breaking News" section as if all over the news we're hearing "A Jewish intellectual has just been discovered to be a Néo-Nazi" :shock:

 

[Agent Ferris]

Yes, I just don't see that as worth addressing; any level-headed person (Ferris obviously does not fit into this category) would realize how ridiculous that accusation is, if not only because the fact that Chomsky is a Jew.

I did not call Chomsky a neo-Nazi, I said (and I have verified this through sources) that there is an extreme left/ultra right/militant Islamist convergence currently taking place and that Chomsky does in fact associate and defend white nationalist/holocaust denial groups and individuals. The extremes on all sides of the political spectrum overlap with one another in that the political spectrum is not a straight line it is a circle.

As to being Jewish, being a Jew does not exempt one from being anti-semitic:

Judaism has contempt for nature, theory, art, history, and man as an end in himself. It considers everything as an object of trade...Judaism as such is for Marx an expression of a self-alienated society... -- Karl Marx

[M]oney has become a world power, and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of Christian nations. The Jews have liberated themselves in so far as Christians have become Jews...The Jew who exists as a particular member of bourgeois society is only the particular expression of the Judaism of bourgeois society...Out of its own entrails bourgeois society continually creates Jews. -- Karl Marx

Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately. It’s raised, but it’s raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue. Not because of the threat of anti-Semitism; they want to make sure there’s no critical look at the policies the US (and they themselves) support in the Middle East. -- Noam Chomsky

 

[Khayembii Communique]

This thread isn't even about the political ideology of the shooter, so this thread should be renamed and moved to the political scandals forum.

I did not call Chomsky a neo-Nazi, I said (and I have verified this through sources) that there is an extreme left/ultra right/militant Islamist convergence currently taking place and that Chomsky does in fact associate and defend white nationalist/holocaust denial groups and individuals. The extremes on all sides of the political spectrum overlap with one another in that the political spectrum is not a straight line it is a circle.

Ah, so he's not a neo-Nazi; he's just allies with them. Right.:lol:

Judaism has contempt for nature, theory, art, history, and man as an end in himself. It considers everything as an object of trade...Judaism as such is for Marx an expression of a self-alienated society... -- Karl Marx

I didn't realize that Marx referred to himself in the third person.:roll:

[M]oney has become a world power, and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of Christian nations. The Jews have liberated themselves in so far as Christians have become Jews...The Jew who exists as a particular member of bourgeois society is only the particular expression of the Judaism of bourgeois society...Out of its own entrails bourgeois society continually creates Jews. -- Karl Marx

I don't see how this is an anti-semitic quote, as you are attempting to paint it as. The entire essay this was from was about the role religion played in secular states and the concept of political emancipation in general. But I'm guessing that you've never actually read it.

Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately. It’s raised, but it’s raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue. Not because of the threat of anti-Semitism; they want to make sure there’s no critical look at the policies the US (and they themselves) support in the Middle East. -- Noam Chomsky

Saying anti-semitism isn't a problem isn't anti-semitic.

 

[Mira]

once again, you provided us withe the antidote
-------------------------------
You ask whether one wouldn't at least suspect the motives of someone who denies genocide (the Holocaust, in particular). Of course. Thus, I do suspect the motives of Wiesel, Bernard Lewis, the anthropological profession, the American Jewish Congress and ASI, Faurisson, Western intellectuals who systematically and almost universally downplay the atrocities of their own states, and people who deny genocide and atrocities generally. But I do not automatically conclude that they are racists; nor do you. Rather, we ask what leads them to these horrendous conclusions. There are many different answers, as we all agree. Since the points are again obvious, a rational person will proceed also to question the motives of those who pretend to deny them, when it suits their particular political purposes. In this respect too the Faurisson affair is far from "settled," as you put it; in fact, the issues have yet to be addressed. In fact, they will never be addressed, because they reveal too much about Western intellectual culture.