A few years later, after it became unmistakably clear that Faurisson was consciously lending his

4.2.12 WC: 191694 A few years later, after it became unmistakably clear that Faurisson was consciously lending his name to all sorts of anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi groups, Chomsky repeated his character reference: “T 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...” (emphasis added) [Add Mearsheimer] When this statement was quoted in the Boston Globe, I wrote the following letter to the editor: “While some may regard Chomsky as an eminent linguist, he does not understand the most obvious meaning of words in context. To fail to see any “hint of anti-Semitic implications” in Faurisson’s collective condemnation of the Jewish people as liars, is to be either a fool or a knave. Chomsky’s actions in defending the substance of Faurisson’s bigoted remarks against valid charges of anti-Semitism—as distinguished from defending Fuarisson’s right to publish such pernicious drivel—disqualify Chomsky from being considered an honorable defender of the “underdog.” The victims of the Holocaust, not its defenders or deniers, are the underdogs.” Chomsky responded by arguing that Faurisson was an anti-Zionist rather than an anti-Semite, because he denounced “Zionist lies.” Following this exchange, I challenged Chomsky to a public debate on the issue of whether it is anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish to deny the Holocaust. This was his answer: “It is so obvious that there is no point in debating it because nobody believes there in an anti-Semitic connotation to the denial of the Holocaust” (emphasis added). One is left to speculate about Chomsky’s motives—political and psychological—for becoming so embroiled in the substantive defense of the writings of a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier. The civil liberties-free speech rationale does not work for Chomsky: civil libertarians who defend the free speech of neo-Nazis do not get into bed with them by legitimating their false “findings” as having been based on “extensive historical research,” and by defending them—on the merits—against well-documented charges of anti-Semitism. Moreover, providing a forward for a book is joining with the author and publisher in an effort to sell the book. It is intended not merely to leave the marketplace of ideas open. It is intended to influence the marketplace substantively in favor of the author’s ideas. This is not the defense of free speech. It is the promotion of Holocaust denial. Several years after my encounter with Chomsky, I was asked to defend a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier named Matthew Hale, who was the head of an anti-Semitic group that called itself “The 141 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017228