{"id":721,"date":"2009-11-21T10:26:42","date_gmt":"2009-11-21T10:26:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ondrocks2000.com\/standpoint\/2009\/11\/21\/chomsky-and-conspiracy-theories\/"},"modified":"2009-11-21T10:26:42","modified_gmt":"2009-11-21T10:26:42","slug":"chomsky-and-conspiracy-theories","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ondrocks2000.com\/standpoint\/2009\/11\/21\/chomsky-and-conspiracy-theories\/","title":{"rendered":"Chomsky and Conspiracy Theories"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cDenial\u201d is an overused word, but in its original context it is essential for understanding how the heirs of mass murderers keep going. Why do modern neo-Nazis deny the Holocaust, when you might think they would be proud of it?\u00a0They have to because every time fascist ideas look at if they might be gaining traction in Europe, they run into the insuperable obstacle of Auschwitz and shatter. Fascists have to deny to persuade themselves and others that they still have a chance of success. The same applies to other criminals. After the Serb camps were discovered in Bosnia, Serbian nationalists and their far left allies in the Revolutionary Communist Party had to pretend that Muslims weren\u2019t being humiliated and murdered but that wicked western journalists from ITN and the Observer <\/em>had manufactured an atrocity where none existed. \u00a0The sinister figure of Noam Chomsky hung around the fringes of the conspiracy cheering on the manufacturers of fake history. <\/p>\n

For once, they were exposed. ITN and the Observer <\/em>sued. I look at how conspiracy theory is generated in my What\u2019s Left<\/a> but the best account of the fakery came from David Campbell in the Journal of Human Rights<\/em>. (You can read it by following the links on this page<\/a>) <\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0 Recently Campbell emailed Noam Chomsky<\/a> to ask for his thoughts on his role in the affair. Their correspondence follows.<\/p>\n

PS Anyone who believes that the British liberal establishment is remotely liberal should note that commissars from the Revolutionary Communist Party now dominate BBC Radio 4\u2019s Moral Maze <\/em>\u00a0and no less a human rights organisation than Amnesty International recently welcomed Professor Chomsky to Britain as an honoured guest.<\/p>\n

Chomsky\u2019s Bosnian shame<\/a><\/h3>\n

November 14th, 2009 <\/p>\n

Following on from the controversy surrounding Noam Chomsky\u2019s October 2009 Amnesty International lecture in Belfast, I have been receiving new information on interviews Professor Noam Chomsky has given in recent years where he discusses, amongst other issues, the 1992 ITN television reports of the Bosnian Serb camps at Omarska and Trnopolje.<\/p>\n

My correspondence with Noam Chomsky:<\/u><\/p>\n

I\u2019ll say some more about these interviews below, but one thing I have always wondered was whether Chomsky was open to evidence that these TV reports were in fact an accurate portrayal of the Prijedor region camps. So, having written the most detailed study available on this issue \u2013 Atrocity, Memory, Photography<\/em>, a two-part academic article<\/a> \u2013 last week I decided to write to Professor Chomsky and ask if he had, or was willing to read, my two articles, and if so, what he thought about them. He did reply, and the reply is revealing.<\/p>\n

Here is the verbatim exchange:<\/p>\n

To:<\/strong> Noam Chomsky <mailto:chomsky2@mit.edu<\/u>>
Sent:<\/strong> Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:30 \u00a0PM
Subject:<\/strong> Bosnian camp photos \u2013 the true story of ITN vs LM<\/p>\n

Dear Professor Chomsky<\/p>\n

In 2002 I published two lengthy, refereed academic articles in \u00a0the Journal of Human Rights on the controversy surrounding the ITN news reports from the Bosnian Serb camps in 1992. These articles (attached as PDFs) were the result of two years research using many primary sources, and they have been freely available on the web for the last few years.<\/p>\n

I am aware that you have made a number of statements repeating and endorsing the substance of the Thomas Deichmann\/Living Marxism critique of the ITN reports. \u00a0I am referring to two items available on your web site, namely the 2005 interview with The Guardian (http:\/\/www.chomsky.info\/onchomsky\/20051031.htm) and the 2006 interview with RTS (http:\/\/www.chomsky.info\/interviews\/20060425.htm).<\/p>\n

In light of my research, I find those statements very disturbing. I believe if you examined the empirical details of the case you would recognise that the Deichmann\/LM position is without foundation when it comes to the accuracy of the original TV reports and the meaning of the camp at Trnopolje.<\/p>\n

I hope you will read my work, and I look forward to your response.<\/p>\n

Yours sincerely<\/p>\n

David Campbell<\/p>\n

Within hours, Chomsky responded:<\/p>\n

On 12\/11\/2009 19:13, \u201cNoam Chomsky\u201d wrote:<\/p>\n

Thanks for the reference. \u00a0I\u2019ll look it up. \u00a0I doubt that I\u2019ll have any comments, unless you raised the matter of freedom of speech. \u00a0On the camp and the photo, I\u2019ve barely discussed it, a single phrase in an interview, in fact, which didn\u2019t say much. \u00a0I realize that the Balkans are a Holy Issue in England, far more sensitive than Israel in the US, so perhaps it is not surprising that a single phrase in an obscure interview, which said virtually nothing, would arouse utter hysteria, as it has.<\/p>\n

As for the sources you cite, one of them (the Guardian interview) was known at once to be a complete fabrication, so ridiculous that the Guardian ombudsman quickly issued an apology and it was withdrawn from their website (over my objection \u2013 I think the antics of the media should be exposed). \u00a0As for the other, I said almost nothing about the photo and the camp, apart from repeating Knightley\u2019s conclusions about what was probably the case. \u00a0\u00a0I presume you agree that he is a credible source, whether right or wrong. \u00a0I\u2019ll be happy to send it to you if you haven\u2019t seen it, along with his bitter condemnation of British intellectuals for their shameful contempt for freedom of speech. \u00a0In the interview to which you referred, that is what I discussed. \u00a0If you disagree with him, you should write to him, not me.<\/p>\n

I am well aware that the concept of freedom of speech is not regarded highly in England, so even this shameful escapade passed with virtually no criticism, in fact with euphoria. \u00a0I\u2019ll be interested in seeing how you handled it in your articles. \u00a0I don\u2019t see anything at all disturbing in my comments, except that they were perhaps too mild in condemnation of British intellectual practices. \u00a0I do, however, think you might consider your own reaction, and ask whether the words \u201cvery disturbing\u201d might be appropriate.<\/p>\n

Noam Chomsky<\/p>\n

This wasn\u2019t exactly an invitation to intellectual engagement (\u201cI doubt that I\u2019ll have any comments\u2026\u201d). And he doesn\u2019t hesitate to conclude with an attack (that my concern about his statements is itself \u201cvery disturbing\u201d). Given this, I didn\u2019t bother with a direct reply. But a public reply is warranted given the seriousness of the issue, so I intend to examine in detail Chomsky\u2019s response.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s skip over the question of whether the Balkans are a \u201choly issue\u201d in England; whether calling attention to his statements is evidence of \u201cutter hysteria\u201d; and his claim that freedom of speech is \u201cnot regarded highly in England\u201d and that \u201cBritish intellectual practices\u201d are to be condemned tout court. <\/em>I am neither English nor British, but the more important point is that Chomsky has said all these things many times before, and the repetition of these charges suggests he keeps a stock answer for enquiries such as mine. Engaging with the challenging views doesn\u2019t seem to interest him. Of course, If Professor Chomsky decides to debate the substance of the two articles I sent him in a future reply, I will post his response and correct anything below should he demonstrate anything I\u2019ve written is incorrect.<\/p>\n

What Chomsky has said on the photographs of the Bosnian camps<\/u><\/p>\n

Lets instead look at what Chomsky, in his own words, has actually said about the issue of ITN news reports, the photograph of Fikret Alic, and the Bosnian camps.<\/p>\n