EXCLUSIVE: Noam Chomsky’s Secret, Friendly Letters to a Holocaust Denier

A Republican Party Animals exclusive: Newly uncovered documents reveal that leftist icon Noam Chomsky has had a much more active dialogue with Holocaust deniers than he’s ever let on.

By David Stein


In the late 1970s and early ‘80s, leftist author, professor, and anti-Israel activist Noam Chomsky became embroiled in what would become known as “The Faurisson Affair.” In 1979, a professor of literature at the University of Lyon, Robert Faurisson, was fined by a French court for claiming in Le Monde that the Holocaust was a hoax.

Chomsky, a rabid critic of Israel, was asked by a friend of Faurisson’s to sign a petition supporting Faurisson’s right to free speech. The petition did not mention Faurisson’s views; it merely defended his right to express them.

Chomsky signed the petition. In the ensuing uproar, he explained his reasons in an October 1980 essay. He claimed to be completely uninterested in Holocaust denial. Faurisson’s views, he wrote, were irrelevant. All that mattered is that people have the right to express political or historical views – however unpopular – free from government prosecution. Regarding Faurisson, Chomsky wrote, “As far as I can determine, he (Faurisson) is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.” This was patently false, as Faurisson’s anti-Semitism was well-documented. However, Chomsky continued to claim ignorance of Faurisson’s views (and of Holocaust denial in general).

Chomsky’s essay was used by a denial publishing house as a preface for a book about Faurisson. Chomsky admitted that he had issued the essay with no restrictions regarding how it could be used, but he claimed to have asked the deniers to refrain from using it in their book. According to Chomsky, his request arrived too late, and the book (with the Chomsky preface) was published.

And that was that. Chomsky has continued, for the past thirty years, to defend his role in L’Affaire Faurisson. His defense always consists of the same points: His lack of knowledge of Faurisson’s work, and (more importantly) his absolute, total lack of interest in Holocaust denial. Chomsky has stressed, time and again, that the subject doesn’t interest him, and that he doesn’t care about, nor does he have knowledge of, anything the deniers say or write.

In short, Chomsky’s defense can be paraphrased as, “Look, I helped a guy out because I don’t believe in government censorship. I don’t care who he was; I’d have helped anyone in the same way. And now it’s done and I have no interest in knowing anything about who this guy is or what he believes in.”

But, according to recently uncovered documents, that’s simply not true.

The Chomsky Letters

From at least 1984 through 1992, Chomsky corresponded with a man who, during those time periods, was one of the leading authors and editors in the Holocaust denial movement. And it was a very friendly correspondence, complete with praise for the denier’s work, and an offer of assistance on Chomsky’s part.

The denier in question is L.A. “Lou” Rollins. At the time of the first Chomsky correspondence, Rollins was a writer and contributing editor at the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), the North American headquarters of Holocaust denial and Nazi literature. And although the IHR has, in the past two decades, attempted to reinvent itself as a “respectable” Holocaust denial institute by eschewing clumsy, vulgar anti-Semitism in favor of pseudo-academic “historiography,” back in 1984 there was no subtlety in the IHR’s presentation. The publishing arm of the IHR sold such titles as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” the “pro-Hitler” reprint of “Mein Kampf,” “The Testament of Adolf Hitler,” “The International Jew,” “The Turner Diaries,” KKK leader David Duke’s autobiography “My Awakening,” and various anti-Semitic and white supremacy booklets and leaflets. Contributors to the IHR included former SS Standartenführer Leon Degrelle, and former Nazi General Otto Ernst Remer.

Below is a page from the IHR’s English-language re-release of Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher’s 1934 German children’s book “The Poisonous Mushroom” (click to enlarge):


It is against this backdrop that Chomsky and Rollins corresponded. In the first of the recently uncovered letters, Chomsky expresses happiness that Rollins was able to find Chomsky’s anti-Israel book “The Fateful Triangle” useful in his work. Chomsky tells Rollins that he’s pleased to hear that he (Rollins) is writing about Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who Chomsky proceeds to call “one of the major frauds of our time.” He compares Wiesel to Nazi collaborators, and accuses him of “exploiting the Holocaust to justify oppression and murder.”

Chomsky promises to send Rollins “news clippings from the Jewish press” to assist him with his anti-Wiesel screed (Rollins’ Chomsky-assisted essay would appear in the fall 1985 edition of the IHR’s “journal”).

Chomsky closes by writing, “I’m looking forward to hearing more about your study.”

The most recent of the newly-uncovered correspondences is from June 14, 1992. It’s a fairly dull discussion of a letter from a third party that Rollins had sent to Chomsky for his perusal.

We have in our possession additional materials covering the Chomsky/Rollins correspondences, and we will be releasing them in due time. But, for now, these two letters aptly demonstrate a long-term, extremely friendly exchange of ideas between Chomsky and a leading figure at the largest Holocaust denial publishing house in America…an exchange in which Chomsky clearly expressed an interest in the denier’s work, and even offered his assistance.

Click here: IMG to view the letter.



60 Responses to “EXCLUSIVE: Noam Chomsky’s Secret, Friendly Letters to a Holocaust Denier”
  1. Lamont Cranston says:

    He didn’t know what Hustler Magazine was when they interviewed him. It is entirely possible the same occurred here, as a matter of fact I seem to recall an allusion to be duped by neo-Nazis in a similar manner when asked about it.
    He keeps himself insular, there is his professional work and activism and private life and after those three not much time for anything else.
    And in pre-internet days how could one look up a seemingly innocuous name and find out its a front for neo-Nazis (or the Koch Brothers)
    How about you contact for an official statement?

    • ajnn says:

      “He didn’t know what Hustler Magazine was when they interviewed him.”

      This is becoming comical. The name of the publication is a significant clue; “HUSTLER”. In addition, the magazine has been notorious for decades. One might as well claim he did not know that ‘mother jones’ is a left-leaning magazine, ‘the nation’ publishes jew-hatred, the ‘national enquirer’ is about hollywood personalities, and ‘playboy’ has pictures of mostly naked women.

      Chomsky is odious and it tells us a great deal about the Left that he is lionized.

  2. Lamont Cranston says:

    Further more, why aren’t Rollins letters included?
    Chomsky maintains an open door with letters and responds to all, often devoting 6 hours a day. Is Chomsky expected to meticulously screen every piece of mail he receives (well actually in the days of the Unabomber they were but I digress), and find out who the writer is? And again keep in mind these are from pre-internet days.
    Unless the Rollins letter in 1982 ended with “oh by the way I publish neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic books” what is Chomsky to know about him?
    Notice in the 1982 letter he condemns “good Germans” and laments the exploitation of the memory of victims of the Holocaust, why would he do so if he held the beliefs of a neo-Nazi anti-Semite? While in the 1992 letter he refers to Holocaust Deniers as “far out nuts”!
    The plain fact is this is an attempt by you to smear Chomsky.

    • dennis says:

      Facts are not smears and his affection for those calling for a new holocaust makes his point of view clear and him a despocable hog

      • Lamont Cranston says:

        But there are no facts here, only a misconstruence of Chomskys writings.
        And how does ending occupation of & settlement development in the West Bank call for a new Holocaust?

        • Jack Sinofsky says:

          Cranston, “misconstruence” isn’t a word, dummy. Your use of it is ample proof of your lack of intellectual prowess (you even manage to misspell the phony word…it’s spelled “misconstruance,” with an “a,” by the other dummies who use it on the Internet).

          And nothing about Chomsky is “misconstrued” in this article. The letters are there, in their entirety, for all to read. People can draw their own conclusions.

          • Lamont Cranston says:

            >And nothing about Chomsky is “misconstrued” in this article. The letters are there, in their entirety, for all to read. People can draw their own conclusions.
            And for you to insinuate a nefarious nature
            I have pointed out what they contain, and responders contest that no that is all wrong.
            A real demonstration of intellectual prowess would be trying to dig up and then manufacture when that doesn’t work controversies and slanders because you can’t mount an argument against what someone has written.

        • dennis says:

          Lies, lies and bigger lies are the only things you leftwing jewhaters can use… mein kampf is a best seller in the ebntire muslim world, hamas calls for the anahilation of israel and your modernday nazis in iran want to nuke and destroy it profoundly (hey your and chomsky’s buddy ahdemdhindad’s words…. just listen … oh no you are deaf when it comes to leftwing murderers… by the way nazis were first and foremost leftwing progressive socialists)

  3. Jill B. says:

    @Lamont Cranston: The article doesn’t smear Chomsky, nor does it claim he holds “the beliefs of a neo-Nazi anti-Semite.” The article simply presents new additions to the body of literature regarding Chomsky’s relationship with the deniers. Plus, it’s obvious from the first letter that Chomsky has some familiarity with Rollins’ work.

    • Lamont Cranston says:

      He is familiar with the letter he is responding to.
      And there can’t be an addition to a body that doesn’t exist.

      • Jack Sinofsky says:

        “And there can’t be an addition to a body that doesn’t exist.” Are you serious? Do you READ? There is a huge body of work that’s been devoted to Chomsky’s relationship with the deniers over the years. You don’t have to agree with the conclusions of those who write about Chomsky and the deniers, but don’t try to pretend that the body of literature doesn’t EXIST. That’s as patently idiotic as denying the Holocaust itself.

        • Lamont Cranston says:

          And if you read these with out a cockeyed desire to see insinuations in everything, you’ll see he consider Holocaust Deniers to be “far out nuts” and does not contest its existence

  4. YellowStar says:

    ooohhhh ohhhhhhh ohhhh you have found the devil, congrats!
    many people in this world don’t belive anymore in all those lies and all the zionist propaganda about the holocaust…why? because of articles like this one.

    You are the new version of the nazi yellow star, and you are now signaling Chomsky the same way the nazis marked jews a long time ago. Shame on you!

  5. Pol Pot says:

    Noam my darling Noam
    Thank you ever so much for helping me carry out the Khmer genocide.
    Your admirer for all eternity,

    Pol Pot,

    • Lamont Cranston says:

      How about you read The Political Economy of Human Rights, instead of what you’re told Chomsky did

    • ajnn says:

      it is remarkable that chomsky’s aid and comfort to a real genocide (millions murdered) has had no impact on his sterling reputation with the Left.

      don’t people use their heads (brains) any longer ?

  6. muchiboy says:

    “Chomsky expresses happiness that Rollins was able to find Chomsky’s anti-Israel book “The Fateful Triangle” useful in his work.”

    At the very least illustrates the maxim that politics makes for strange and not so strange bedfellows.As an example of the not so strange bedfellows I could cite the Zionist Israeli camp-Apartheid South Africa camp relationship.So what ya gonna do,call the Ghost Busters?muchiboy

    • dennis says:

      do us all a favour and go fight real apartheid in mulsim countries… your buddies… for example in saudi arabia non-muslims could be killed for entering mecca… but hey what another reason on the list for a muslim to kill an infidel and of course jordan where selling land to a jew is punishable by death.
      of course in the good old us lefty jews like chomsky and gutmensch democrats are also bigotted racists as they wouldn’t get close to a white guy who used to live in a KKK town, however, a half black muslim raised claiming to be chritsian socialist that was a member of a vriuklent antisemitic church for 20 years and whose friends include all kind of jewhater whites haters and muslim brotherhood members (who wish to destroy everything not muslim… talking about apartheid), is a great candiadte to be US president (by the way i wisjed he was so supportive of iranians who were seeking democracy as he is of noth african seeking the muslim qulifate

    • ajnn says:

      Another post from ‘muchiboy’.

      He is consistent in his giving aid and comfort to the jew-haters and other racists. here he cites trade relations in the 1970’s of israel and south africa as evidence that jews are bad people.

      the same tune; over and over. i think we know who you are muchiboy: jew-hater.

  7. Neils60 says:

    The sad part is that Chomsky is respected by some of the far, far-left, Kool-Aid drinking loons. How sad.

  8. JasonM says:

    Nice FAIL, Davey!

    These letters prove nothing. Where in these letters does Chomsky say “I deny the Holocaust ever happened.” He doesn’t.

    Chomsky 1, Davey Stein 0.

    • ajnn says:

      I was interested in Chomsky’s 1977 book claiming that there was no humanitarian crisis in South East Asia (the ‘Boat People) in the late 1970’s and that the news reports were an American plot to discredit the legitimate governments of the region.

      How many people died, how many of us foolishly listened to Chomsky and did not offer aid….

      How many lives did Chomsky extinguish with his propaganda ?

      I resolved to never again to credit anything coming from Chomsky and his acolytes.

  9. Mano says:

    Smearing Chomsky in this way will only work for an audience that is either (a) thoroughly ideologically committed to a pro-Israel position already, or (b) unlikely to open one of Chomsky’s books to measure his views against your descriptions of him. I suspect your distortions will backfire on those who do choose to check for themselves, because they will see how dishonest you’ve been, thereby discrediting by association any debate on Israel/Palestine that might come from honest figures on your side, thus feeding into, rather than combating, anti-Israeli and antisemitic (for those who can’t tell the difference) sentiments.

    By all means expose genuine holocaust deniers if you really think anyone takes them seriously. Holocaust denial seems to be relatively common in Arab states that neighbour Israel, but in the rest of the world, holocaust denial is so marginal that the mainstream views it as utterly laughable and just not worth thinking about or critiquing.

    Chomsky, himself a Jew who lived for part of his life in Israel, is a threat to the Israeli government (and certainly not to its people) because he has been very critical of its human rights record. No government should be exempt from criticism, especially on those grounds.

    • Mike K says:

      I’ve never read any of his books but I’ve read many of his articles in al-Jazeera and other places online. His tendency to critize Israel and praise Palestinians in all cases comes thorough very clearly. Did you notice how in the second letter he insisted that he avoided ambiguities than went on ask several questions which he never clearly answers but says “The actual answers are not hard to figure out.”

  10. Jim says:

    Chomsky continues to be the lying communist he always has been. The Chomsky cheerleadering comments are validate the stupidity of his supporters asnd minions.

  11. TiredOfChimpsky says:

    Noam Chomsky is truly one of the most odious professors that MIT has ever employed. It’s hard to understand why they put up with his nonsense, regardless of his linguistics genius.

    When I was at MIT in the 70’s, one day I was walking through the main lobby, and noticed that someone had unfurled a huge Soviet Flag with a sign saying “Happy Birthday Noam Chomsky”. The flag was unfurled in a location that was reserved for student organizations, and as I was in student government, I got the call from his office demanding that it be taken down.

    I asked what their problem with “Free Speech” was. They weren’t happy. Needless to say, I took my time getting back to take it down. It was one of the more pleasant days of my existence at the school!

  12. Jon says:

    If you write to Chomsky he writes you back. Doesn’t mean he knows much about you or endorses what you say.

    • Jack Sinofsky says:

      Brilliant reasoning, Jon. So you’re saying that Chomsky just so happened to call Elie Wiesel a major fraud, just so happened to compare him to Nazis, and just so happened to accuse him of exploiting the Holocaust to justify murder, even though he (according to you) had NO IDEA who he was writing to?!?! Oh, and he offers to help the guy write an article, and tells him he’s looking forward to hearing more about the guy’s work, even though (according to you) he knew nothing about who the guy was?

      So, according to you, these are just things that Noam drops into any random correspondence. “Dear Noam, I liked the jacket you wore during that TV interview. Who is your tailor? Sincerely, Joe.”

      “Dear Joe, Elie Wiesel is a murderous lying fraud, and I’d LOVE to help you with your article. Please tell me more about it. Respectfully, Noam.”

      Like I said, Jon, brilliant reasoning!

  13. Taxpayer says:

    Taking a course in Chomsky’s transformational grammar was enough to convince me he has a tenuous grip on reason.

    His lefty cheerleaders insist he’s the most brilliant man evah. Yet when he corresponds with a well-known Holocaust denier, he magically morphs into a nice old man who writes back to everyone and doesn’t know who they are. Sure. Whatever.

  14. mike d says:

    Is anybody taking this seriously? There’s no evidence, just wildly unfounded accusations. If these emails existed, they would circulate them, not hide them, the latter being contrary to their interests.

    Also: there is no evidence to suggest Chomsky supported Pol Pot, just another blatant lie. Please investigate it.

    • Ben Barrow says:

      Wow, Mike D, you’re rather ignorant. If you’d actually READ the above article, you’d have seen that these are hard-copy letters, not emails (sorry that the 1984 date of one of the letters didn’t tip you off, Einstein).

      Second, if you knew anything at all about U.S. Holocaust deniers, you’d know that their number-one goal is to achieve a veneer of respectability. They would never circulate private correspondences from bigwigs like Chomsky. They realize that people like Chomsky can be of far greater help if they’re not scared that their private communications will be trumpeted all over the place. That’s why these letters have remained secret for so long.

  15. Fray222 says:

    I really don’t understand this conservative obsession with who is friends with whom. So what if Noam is friends with an anti-Semite? So what if Obama is friends some Marxist? Its a free country, why can’t we be friends with whomever the hell we want.

  16. Noam Chomsky says:

    I decided to become an anti-Semite when I realized it would REALLY REALLY upset Mumsie and Papa! How dare they make me give up my diapers and use the potty!

  17. Peter says:

    For anyone who wants to know what Chomsky REALLY thinks and says, in contrast with what his groupies say he thinks and says, probably the best resource on Chomsky is this: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html
    but this is also an essential resource: http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html

  18. Peter says:

    For anyone who wants to know what Chomsky REALLY thinks and says, in contrast with what his groupies say he thinks and says, probably the best resource on Chomsky is this: www dot paulbogdanor dot com/chomskyhoax dot html
    but this is also an essential resource: www dot wernercohn dot com/Chomsky dot html

  19. Mitch says:

    Please publish here the story of how Chomsky screamed F*** off, Nigger at the conservative black student who spoke to him in the Brookline books store!

  20. Jerry Nuss says:

    All of the Chomsky apologists who’ve been making excuses like “he didn’t know who those horrible deniers were” miss the obvious point that by 1984 he was WELL AWARE because, after he spoke out for Faurisson in ’79, he had been MADE aware by people bombarding him with the facts about Faurisson, the IHR, and the rest. In 1978, maybe he could plead ignorance. But by 1984, he had been told, repeatedly, who these people are.

  21. Brittain Hard says:

    Hah. I shouldn’t have been surprised that you would delete my comment, but i was. Sorry for thinking that you could be honest about your disgusting fascism and admit your bias and smear tactics. My bad.

  22. Matt Brough says:

    Neither of those letters have anything in them that would raise an eyebrow. If LA Rollins revealed himself to be an outrageous figure in his letters to Chomsky, then it might be of interest. Without them they just don’t mean anything.

  23. Danica says:

    What all of the Chomskyites are failing to understand is that the 1984 letter has to be understood within the atmosphere of 1984. For the previous few years, the Faurisson situation had been THE MAIN CONTROVERSY in Chomsky’s career, and his colleagues, and adversaries, had introduced him to the ugly works of the people at the IHR (to try to warn him away from any more contact with those kooks). Chomsky KNEW who these people were. Seriously, there are entire books written about the Faurisson/Chomsky controversy. Try reading one, then come back and comment.

  24. Muchiboy says:

    I hate all dem Joos cause I got such a tiny insignificant petsele in my trousers

  25. Noam Chomsky says:

    I support Nazis because I hate my Daddy but crave my Mommy!

  26. joe stalin says:

    Poor old Chomsky for such a brilliant man ,
    he seems to have more than his fair shares of gaffes and seems
    He’s quite ignorant of who’s who in the world of politics , could be why
    He has never published in a peer reviewed politics journal.

  27. When will this desperate, talentless fame-whore with an adams apple just F-off and die?

  28. Michelle Martense says:

    As a libertarian who has written to Chomsky, I can attest that he will answer anyone who writes to him. In the pre-internet days, it would’ve very difficult to know that LA Rollins was involved in the IHR, unless you read that publication. I remember in the 90s, Rollins had a book of aphorisms out, book which was carried at plenty of “mainstream” bookstores. From my cursory glances at it, nothing was amiss.

    Without including the actual letters, this come across as a smear job.

    • Danica says:

      Okay, for the last time (and I say that knowing full-well that it WON’T be for the last time, because the river of morons is deep and never-ending), after 1979 many people, both FRIENDS and FOES of Chomsky, sent him literature from the IHR, in an attempt to educate him regarding the IHR’s ideology. This has been written about in numerous books and articles. By 1984, he KNEW what the IHR was, and he KNEW whose names were on the masthead. People like you, Michelle, are intellectual cowards. You can’t bring yourself to take the intellectually honest stance of saying, “Yes, Chomsky likely knew who Rollins was, but he corresponded with him anyway, and I support that.” Instead, you cower like a vole, whining “Ooooh, poor Noam surely didn’t know who this man was.” Grow a pair (figuratively). Noam knew. Deal with it.

  29.  Let’s End Thought Crimes in the Twenty-first Century! 

    I wish to express my outrage that the Holocaust, unlike any other historical event, is not subject to critical revisionist investigation. Furthermore I deplore the fact that many so-called democratic states have laws that criminalize public doubting of the Holocaust. It is my position that the veracity of Holocaust assertions should be determined in the marketplace of scholarly discourse and not in our legislatures bodies and courthouses.

    Michael Santomauro 
    @ 917-974-6367 

    What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?

  30. Amy Aremia says:

    After more than 60 years it’s time to put the “Holocaust”to rest and let historians place it where it belongs in the archives of history. To deny, or to question facts is an absolute absoute disregard for freedom of speech to question and study an era of events.
    To contrive an evil plot by pulling a holocaust out of WW II is in itself an act to perpetrate and to prolong the existence of a cause that has created great unrest upon the world, and ignores nearly 58 million other victims.
    History shows that Hiler had less than 3 million Jews under his command; thousands had fled to other countries. After the Allies freed the camps, 50,000 came to the United States without a passport except a number tattooed on their arms.
    This one act has blinded the people for too long as to what is happening in our world since the war. We are facing more serious problems bringing the world closer to a global government through continued violence, riots, chaos, revolution, and perpetual wars for “peace and democracy” two words that are in variance…

  31. Joe says:

    David, I can’t believe you are only a few years older than me. During those interviews in the 90’s, you were so young yet so mature. I saw your Donahue interview and then your Auschwitz video only a few months ago and they opened my eyes. Here I am with the all the world’s information at my fingertips and pushing 40, and had a kid from the 90’s educating me on the holocaust. I am happy to see that you were able to get on in lfe, as I was concerned for your safety.

    To any of his detractors, why don’t you look at his work before condemning him? He clearly was looking to get at the truth of the matter, nothing more, nothing less.

    David, I’ve read a bunch of your articles on this website and came to the conclusion that you were still trying to educate people about the distorted truth of the holocaust, yet you did it in a way as to not take part in the questioning. The linked article about Noam Chomsky in particular, I believe, shows that you were giving the Chomsky text plenty of room to get a point across. I don’t particularly like that your article tries to out Chomsky, and can’t help but feel that some of what’s happening here is karma for doing so.

    However, if joe-public were to come across this article they’d walk away with the notion that something may not be on the level with the official holocaust narrative and that Eli Weisel might be a fraud. So even though you were somewhat standing on the other side, I believe that article was put out to educate people, so I thank you for that.
    The article:

    David, I hope you embrace your old identity and use it to speak about this subject that you know so much about. Please don’t go away. You opened my eyes, and there are tens of thousands more us that need to hear it. One day the official narrative will be revised and we’ll have people such as yourself to thank.

  32. Joe says:

    okay, i see why this didn’t post last time. i am in moderation. my bad. sorry for the double post.

  33. Barney says:

    I like the fact how you declare this: “Chomsky tells Rollins that he’s pleased to hear that he (Rollins) is writing about Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who Chomsky proceeds to call ‘one of the major frauds of our time.’ He compares Wiesel to Nazi collaborators, and accuses him of ‘exploiting the Holocaust to justify oppression and murder.'” Then, you proceed to leave off entirely whether Wiesel is indeed a fraud or not. Maybe Rollins’s study is meant to unearth, if not directly, than indirectly … and if not in whole, then perhaps in part … that Wiesel’s claims may indeed be inflated, misdirected, or downright true. Truth does not fear investigation, and if this study is built with flimsy metrics of analysis, then a learned scholar who is not afraid of people believing lies will simply condemn the study on grounds of inadequate data, overreaching conclusions, or other associated logical fallacies. No one with a shred of appreciation for truth will condemn a study for its leading hypothesis, or for questioning the mainstream. Not unless this person is married to his bias more than he is to another person’s self-admitted opinion. Maybe Rollins would discover that he was wrong. But that’s not important to you. I’m surprised that the Republicans exiled you. You’re an asset to them. Stupid and mouthy.

  34. Glen says:

    Most people can understand the distinction between supporting freedom of speech and supporting the content of that speech. Clearly, many folks on this website cannot, or don’t accept the distinction as being important. The article in question is slime – Chomsky is polite and controlled even with people who lie about him openly (such as Alan Dershowitz). To describe him as being “friendly” with anti-Semites is a gross distortion of the facts and the author knows it. Read his letter again. If you can’t understand his goals then you don’t have the intellectual capacity to engage on this. Chomsky has described the Nazi Holocaust – countless times in writing and during speeches – as the most murderous destruction in human history; just ask and I can provide more examples than you have time to read. To associate him with Holocaust deniers is astonishing, and that lie must be challenged everywhere it is written. That’s the only reason I took five minutes out of my schedule to write this. I can understand why Chomsky terrifies some people. Be brave, and admit why he scares you. But you won’t do that.

Leave A Comment