I have come to the end of Chomsky's story but there is a final question that some readers may find bothersome. I have described the politics of Noam Chomsky insofar as they relate to Nazism, and I have also shown something about Chomsky's associates: Faurisson, Guillaume, Thion, the Institute for Historical Review. Chomsky's propaganda, taken by itself, is obnoxious and certainly hostile to Jews but still does not have quite the same character as that of his associates. Where they are frankly neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic, he fudges and covers himself with self-exculpating formulas. Were it not for his associates we would certainly wish to recognize a line between him and organized anti-Semitism.People who are only casual observers of Noam Chomsky tend to make the mistake of lumping him in with every other Jewish marxist who has come along. And, of course, he has a lot of support from both Jewish and non-Jewish Leftists insofar as they don't take the time to examine his political writings in toto (and who, besides Werner Cohn, would want to?) and take the time to figure out where he's coming from. Chomsky has never made much of an effort to distance himself from that support either.The reader will have to judge for himself what to make of Chomsky's choice of political friends. My summary of the issue is that his associates are in the business of justifying the Nazis and that Chomsky helps them to carry on this business, not at all as a defender of freedom of speech but as a warm and reliable friend.
Much nonsense is sometimes written about the alleged fallacy of "guilt by association." True, if Chomsky happened to be associated with Faurisson and Thion in a tennis club, that particular association would not make him a neo-Nazi. But in fact we saw that Chomsky justified Faurisson's Holocaust-denial, we found Chomsky publishing his own books with neo-Nazi publishers, we saw him writing for a neo-Nazi journal, we saw that the neo-Nazis promote Chomsky's books and tapes together with the works of Joseph Goebbels. It is this complex of anti-Semitic activities and neo-Nazi associations, not his professed ideas alone, that constitutes the Chomsky phenomenon.
Here is the best analysis that I've seen of Chomsky's political philosophy and which movements and philosophies of which he's a part or supportive. Even the casual observer will not have missed that fact that Chomsky is no defender of Zionism. But he's managed to keep his Jewish antagonism under wraps pretty well. Here's the expose of his philosophy that is overdue.
Will it make an impact on his support? I doubt it very much. His defenders and "disciples" tend to be the kind of people who are convinced they are smarter than anyone else and therefore no one can tell them anything.
An interesting thing about his anti-Semitism is that his father was a well-known Hebrew scholar and, I'm pretty sure, a Zionist. His main mentor in Linguistics was his professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Zellig Harris who was most definitely a strong Zionist and spent the last years of his life working as a carpenter in Israel, if I'm not mistaken. In short, I am sure that he was steeped in Zionism from an early age. So his turn to anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism represents, to me, a strong rejection of himself and his background. Any amateur psychologists want to comment on this?
Until I see that sort of thing, I will suspect that this is all guilt by association.