Editorial

He is, however, an unconventional academic radical. Over the past thirty years, the left in the humanities has been smitten by high theory, especially neo-Marxist, feminist, and postmodernist philosophy out of Germany and France. Much of this material was arcane enough in its own language but in translation it elevated obscurantism to a badge of prestige. It inundated the humanities with relativism both in epistemology and moral philosophy.

In contrast, Chomsky has produced no substantial body of political theory of his own. Nor is he a relativist. He advocates the pursuit of truth and knowledge about human affairs and promotes a simple, universal set of moral principles. Moreover, his political writings are very clear, pitched to a general rather than specialist audience. He supports his claims not by appeals to some esoteric conceptual apparatus but by presenting plain, apparently factual evidence. The explanation for his current appeal, therefore, needs to be sought not in recent intellectual fashions but in something with a longer history.

Keith Windschuttle is an author and publisher who is a frequent contributor to The New Criterion and Quadrant. He is author of The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past, which is now in its fourth edition from Encounter Books, and five other books on contemporary social issues. His book The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One, Van Diemen's Land 1803-1847, will be published by Macleay Press, Sydney, in November.
He is publisher of Macleay Press, Sydney. He is a graduate in history from the University of Sydney and in politics from Macquarie University. He is a former academic who taught history, social policy and media studies the University of New South Wales and other Australian universities. His principal research interests are in historiography, especially of Australian and American history, and in the theories of history produced in the last two hundred years.

by Werner Cohn

© Werner Cohn, 1985, 1995
Published by Avukah Press, Cambridge




Preface to the 1994 Edition

The Hidden Alliances of Noam Chomsky

Chomsky and the Neo-Nazis

Is it a Matter of Freedom of Speech ?

From Marlen to Faurisson

The Alleged "Documentary" Basis of Anti-Zionism

Notes

http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html#anchor13840

The Hidden Alliances of Noam Chomsky

Everyone knows Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his linguistics and his left-wing politics. But the fact that he also plays an important role in the neo-Nazi movement of our time ­­ that he is, without any doubt, the most important patron of that movement ­­ is well known only in France. Much like a bigamist who must constantly strain to keep one of his families secret from the other, Chomsky and his most initiated supporters try to prevent his liberal and left-wing followers from knowing too much about his other, his neo-Nazi life.

Chomsky has said that his contact with the neo-Nazis is strictly limited to a defense of their freedom of speech. He has said that he disagrees with the most important neo-Nazi article of faith, viz. that the Holocaust never happened. But such denials have not prevented him from prolonged and varied political collaboration with the neo-Nazi movement, from agreement with it on other key points, nor ­­ and this has proven essential for the neo-Nazis especially in France ­­ from using his scholarly reputation to promote and publicize the neo-Nazi cause.

La 2004-11-11 16:33:09, Gargantua a scris:

> Recunosc ca nu am citit lucrarile stiintifice ale lui Chomsky, pentru
> ca nu am contact cu specialitatea lui, lingvistica. Stiu, insa, ca
> este unul din marii lingvisti ai lumii, autorul unor sisteme
> consacrate in acest domeniu. Implicarea lui in politica este insa cel
> putin dezmagitoare, daca nu scandaloasa, dupa ceea ce reiese din
> mesajele tale.

Chomsky nu este singurul care crede ca realizarile din domeniul lui de specialitate ii confera un drept in plus in a-si da cu parerea in chestiuni din alte domenii, publice, din afara specialitatii sale. Si, din pacate, este inca unul care crede ca a gasit Solutia, si ca tot ce a mai ramas este sa intoarcem cheia. Ca si altii dinaintea lui, iubeste cu pasiune unamitatea si ii doreste absolut tot binele, dar nu intelege aspiratiile oamenilor de rind din jurul lui...


> impotriva umanitatii: regimurile lui Stalin, Mao-tze-dung, Pol Pot,
> samd. Eu inteleg sa impartasesti anumite pareri politice, chiar daca

Am citit mai demult o carte in care autorul demonteaza mecanismele prin care ginditorii gen Chomsky incearca sa justifice faptele atunci cind sint confruntati cu ele. Era ceva foarte asemanator cu ce ati citit intr-unul din mesajele anterioare, "Chomsky, Khmer Rouge, the Pol Pot regime". Observati falsele comparatii (cu Franta la sfirsitul WWII), negarea cifrelor, respingerea altor puncte de vedere din cauza vederilor politice diferite ale autorilor sau locurilor in care au fost publicate, respingerea marturiilor de la fata locului ca "unreliable", si, in final, punerea blamului la tot la usa Statelor Unite...

Anything goes, atunci cind faptele nu ne convin... :-)

Chomsky este sclipitor!
Cine esti tu ca sa impui oamenilor sa nu se exprime? Faptul ca e specialist in lingvistica inseamna ca nu are dreptul sa aiba pareri despre politica, despre viata, despre lumea care ne inconjoara? Daca eu sunt medic trebuie sa ma ocup doar de bolnavi si sa nu am o parere despre nimic altceva?
Ai o gandire de extrem-dreapta my friend.

La 2004-11-11 17:36:48, Robin a scris:

> La 2004-11-11 16:33:09, Gargantua a scris:
> 
> > Recunosc ca nu am citit lucrarile stiintifice ale lui Chomsky, pentru
> > ca nu am contact cu specialitatea lui, lingvistica. Stiu, insa, ca
> > este unul din marii lingvisti ai lumii, autorul unor sisteme
> > consacrate in acest domeniu. Implicarea lui in politica este insa cel
> > putin dezmagitoare, daca nu scandaloasa, dupa ceea ce reiese din
> > mesajele tale.
> 
> Chomsky nu este singurul care crede ca realizarile din domeniul lui de
> specialitate ii confera un drept in plus in a-si da cu parerea in
> chestiuni din alte domenii, publice, din afara specialitatii sale.
> Si, din pacate, este inca unul care crede ca a gasit Solutia, si ca
> tot ce a mai ramas este sa intoarcem cheia. Ca si altii dinaintea
> lui, iubeste cu pasiune unamitatea si ii doreste absolut tot binele,
> dar nu intelege aspiratiile oamenilor de rind din jurul lui...
> 
> 
> > impotriva umanitatii: regimurile lui Stalin, Mao-tze-dung, Pol Pot,
> > samd. Eu inteleg sa impartasesti anumite pareri politice, chiar daca
> 
> Am citit mai demult o carte in care autorul demonteaza mecanismele
> prin care ginditorii gen Chomsky incearca sa justifice faptele atunci
> cind sint confruntati cu ele. Era ceva foarte asemanator cu ce ati
> citit intr-unul din mesajele anterioare, "Chomsky, Khmer Rouge,
> the Pol Pot regime". Observati falsele comparatii (cu Franta la
> sfirsitul WWII), negarea cifrelor, respingerea altor puncte de vedere
> din cauza vederilor politice diferite ale autorilor sau locurilor in
> care au fost publicate, respingerea marturiilor de la fata locului ca
> "unreliable", si, in final, punerea blamului la tot la usa
> Statelor Unite...
> 
> Anything goes, atunci cind faptele nu ne convin... :-)
> 
>