Norms and Values. posted by Richard Seymour

Chris at See Why has a few words to say about my recent spat with Norman Geras:

"But what I do feel fairly strongly about is that Norm Geras is not an "Apostate, Mad Dog who must be shot". No, to put it mildly, I do not think that Norm deserves to be shot."

Fair enough, and I'm sure Chris understands that I was taking the piss.

Still, he invites us to consider the Brad deLong rules on blogger civility:

"If you don't want to be called a liar, then don't lie. Similarly, if you don't want to be called an idiot, then don't be one."

I agree, and I might just point out that Brad deLong is both a liar and an idiot. Having wasted aeons of time smearing Noam Chomsky , he responds to Edward S. Herman's demolition job by engaging in yet another misrepresentation .

The quality of deLong's response can almost instantly be evaluated by his flippant opener:

"I got bored reading Ed Herman, and I'm sure everybody else did too.
So let me confine my reply to one single point, rather than further
boring everyone with responses to ten of Herman's errors and
misrepresentations."

Naturally, one is bored/disgusted/appalled/horrified by one's opponent. And naturally, there are at least ten "errors and misrepresentations" which Herman is guilty of, and which deLong just doesn't feel like illustrating for us at the moment:

"Ed Herman claims that Chomsky's defense of Nazi sympathizer Robert
Faurisson "soley [as] a defense of the right of free speech and that
from beginning to end that was all the struggle was about for
Chomsky."


PUH-LEEAAZE! Chomsky did not write that Faurisson was a Nazi
sympathizer--and for that reason it was the more important to protect
his free speech. Chomsky wrote that Faurisson seemed to be "a
relatively apolitical liberal" who was being smeared by zionists.


Herman then repeats the lie by claiming that Faurisson's critics were
"unable to provide any credible evidence of anti-Semitism or
neo-Naziism.""

Well, Brad deLong obviously doesn't know what "Faurisson's leading critics in France" told Chomsky when he spoke to them. If he wishes to invoke the "liar" charge at this point, he'd better exceed the allusive "guilt-by-association" tactic which he has so far deployed with moronic consistency. And note that Herman did not write that Chomsky wrote "that Faurisson was a Nazi sympathiser - and for that reason it was the more important to protect his free speech". Herman accurately reports Chomsky's position which was that "even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi -- such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here -- this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense."

Also note that while Chomsky did indicate that his judgment, on the basis of little familiarity with, and even less interest in Faurisson's work, the latter was a "relatively apolitical liberal", it is nowhere the case that he said (or even implied) that Faurisson was simply being "smeared by Zionists". In fact, the only reference to Zionists that one can find in Chomsky's published works on this matter, is Abraham Foxman of the ADL: "A number of critics (for example Abraham Forman of the Anti-Defamation League in Le Matin) contend that the only issue is Faurisson's right to publish and that this has not been denied..." (His Right To Say It, The Nation, 28th February 1981). In neither of the two Chomsky articles on this matter can one even find the word "Zionism".

Since deLong doesn't bother attempting to refute anything else Herman has had to say, nor even retract his own proven misrepresentations, he deserves to have his own fatuous little aphorism thrown back in his face.

What does this have to do with Norman Geras and See Why? Nothing. I just felt like talking about it.