Chomsky’s Secret Letters to a Holocaust Denier


In the late 1970s and early ‘80s, leftist author, professor, and anti-Israel activist Noam Chomsky became embroiled in what would become known as “The Faurisson Affair.” In 1979, a professor of literature at the University of Lyon, Robert Faurisson, was fined by a French court for claiming in Le Monde that the Holocaust was a hoax.

Chomsky, a rabid critic of Israel, was asked by a friend of Faurisson’s to sign a petition supporting Faurisson’s right to free speech. The petition did not mention Faurisson’s views; it merely defended his right to express them.

Chomsky signed the petition. In the ensuing uproar, he explained his reasons in an October 1980 essay. He claimed to be completely uninterested in Holocaust denial. Faurisson’s views, he wrote, were irrelevant. All that mattered is that people have the right to express political or historical views – however unpopular – free from government prosecution. Regarding Faurisson, Chomsky wrote, “As far as I can determine, he (Faurisson) is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.” This was patently false, as Faurisson’s anti-Semitism was well-documented. However, Chomsky continued to claim ignorance of Faurisson’s views (and of Holocaust denial in general).

Chomsky’s essay was used by a denial publishing house as a preface for a book about Faurisson. Chomsky admitted that he had issued the essay with no restrictions regarding how it could be used, but he claimed to have asked the deniers to refrain from using it in their book. According to Chomsky, his request arrived too late, and the book (with the Chomsky preface) was published.

And that was that. Chomsky has continued, for the past thirty years, to defend his role in L’Affaire Faurisson. His defense always consists of the same points: His lack of knowledge of Faurisson’s work, and (more importantly) his absolute, total lack of interest in Holocaust denial. Chomsky has stressed, time and again, that the subject doesn’t interest him, and that he doesn’t care about, nor does he have knowledge of, anything the deniers say or write.

In short, Chomsky’s defense can be paraphrased as, “Look, I helped a guy out because I don’t believe in government censorship. I don’t care who he was; I’d have helped anyone in the same way. And now it’s done and I have no interest in knowing anything about who this guy is or what he believes in.”

But, according to recently uncovered documents, that’s simply not true.

To continue reading this article, click here.

  • Jim

    The Lizard has changed his stripes. Him for free speech? That was then. What does he say now.

    and he must think Eisenhower was a liar

    • Lamont Cranston

      He has always been for free speech
      Rather than nefarious insinuations why don't you step up to the plate and provide evidence of where he has not

  • Charles V

    Your article was really thin, almost insulting. My thought is "so what". You proved nothing.

    • Jerry Nuss

      "Charles V" – The most intellectually lazy response to inconvenient or unwelcome facts is to say "so what." This article is objective and factually-based. The conclusions are ours to draw as we wish, but it's good to have this info out there, considering Chomsky's 30-year history of pleading ignorance, disinterest, and detachment regarding the deniers.

      • Charles V

        I would be surprised if it were ever referred to or cited in any arguement by anyone ever.

        So I say "so what".

      • Justin

        actually this article has very little basis in fact. the only fact is that they used his article as a preface. everything else are assertions and here-say. the real facts about what chomsky believe about the holocaust (since you all seem to be so misinformed) is his massive bibliography of work (100+), where he states over and over that holocaust deniers base their work in false realities, and generally don't merit much attention. call him a nazi for this. call him an antisemite. and the rest of us who have actually taken a look (personally several looks to be modest) will call you ignorant.

  • Amused

    Whern has Chomsky EVER beden objective ? This latest new/old revelation should surprise no one . So he offers the "standard excuse " of the intellectual , caught with his morals in the toilet …….." I'm not interested in the Holocaust at all " ….. so the "all knowing Chomsky " pleads iontellectual ignorance regarding who and what he endorses by adding his two cents .
    His nose should be shoved in this without relent , it should follow him and overshadow anything else he has to say .

    • Taim

      You are advocating the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

  • Pol Pot

    Noam my dear Noam. Thank you so much for all you did to help me carry out the Khmer genocide!

    You doting admirer, Pol Pot

  • Larry

    First lets not call Chumpsky a jew. He gave up all claims to being a jew more then 30 years ago. As the #1 hero of the far left and being an anti-semite. I would not pay any attention to anything he has to say. He and Norm Finkelstein are close friends. Do I need to say more.

    • Morrissey

      Spoken like a true believer, Larry! We must not, we dare not, criticize the Holy State. Whatever crimes it carries out (for instance, invading a neighbouring country and killing more than 20,000 civilians in 1982, or carrying out a turkey-shoot on an imprisoned city, as in those "twenty-two days of madness" in 2008-9) are forgivable and excusable. The Cause is everything.

      What would academics like Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky know about anything? We can learn all we need to know by reading the Moonie-owned Washington Times and listening (and accepting) every word uttered by such pillars of integrity as Tzipi Livny. (What a pity that other countries don't appreciate her—if she even sets foot on British soil, she will be detained as a war criminal.)

  • Jacob

    This just in:

    "Chomsky slated to write his next book, which will be about World War II historiography, with controversial historian David Irving".

  • USMCSniper

    I have always considered Noam Chompsky to be a charlatan and a fraud who bullsh^ts so much he believes his own bullsh*t. Professor Chompsky is a grotesque intellectual incompetent working in the obscure field of linguistics publishing nonsense who has never done anything of any significance other than make a ridiculous public spectacle out of himself. I considered him a non-colleague when I was a MIT as an adjunct professor.

    • Morrissey

      You don't write like a college professor, my friend. Are you telling the truth or, as I and I'm sure anyone else who reads your posts would think, just spinning a fantasy?

      If you wanted to expose Professor Chomsky as a charlatan or a fraud, you would surely do something more effective than vacuously call him names.

      I don't believe you've read anything Chomsky has written.

  • muchiboy

    "Chomsky expresses happiness that Rollins was able to find Chomsky’s anti-Israel book “The Fateful Triangle” useful in his work."

    At the very least illustrates the maxim that politics makes for strange and not so strange bedfellows.As an example of the not so strange bedfellows I could cite the Zionist Israeli camp-Apartheid South Africa camp relationship.So what ya gonna do,call the Ghost Buster

    • dennis

      do us all a favour and go fight real apartheid in mulsim countries… your buddies… for example in saudi arabia non-muslims could be killed for entering mecca… but hey what another reason on the list for a muslim to kill an infidel and of course jordan where selling land to a jew is punishable by death.
      of course in the good old us lefty jews like chomsky and gutmensch democrats are also bigotted racists as they wouldn't get close to a white guy who used to live in a KKK town, however, a half black muslim raised claiming to be chritsian socialist that was a member of a vriuklent antisemitic church for 20 years and whose friends include all kind of jewhater whites haters and muslim brotherhood members (who wish to destroy everything not muslim… talking about apartheid), is a great candiadte to be US president (by the way i wisjed he was so supportive of iranians who were seeking democracy as he is of noth african seeking the muslim qulifate

    • Spirit_Of_1683

      Naziboy, Hitler and Chumpsky. Peas from the same pod, despite the fact that Hitler would have sent Chumpsky to the gas chamber had he been living in Poland 70 years ago, and Naziboy would have cheered him to his calvary.

    • MixMChess

      Sorry Naziboy, looks like you got caught in another lie.

      Like most other Western States, Israel had diplomatic relations with S. Africa shortly after its birth. Of course, in the 50s and 60s Israel was extremely critical of S. Africa's stance on apartheid and built alliances with post-colonial African governments. In fact, Israel even voted for a General Assembly censure of a S. African speech defending apartheid in 1961.

      Even when relations with S. Africa warmed in the 1970's and 80's Israel acted no different than countries such as France which had built strategic alliances with S. Africa. Of course, you will only condemn Israel because you are Jew-baiting rubbish.

  • Amused

    You can "cite " whatever you want muchi-boy , intellectually and morally , you're in bed with Chomsky any way . You two oughta get a room .

    • MixMChess

      Amused, muchiboy has yet to actually cite a real fact or statistic. He usually just repeats anti-Israel/neo-nazi rhetoric.

  • Atlas_Collins

    How many poor jews were slaughtered in the Shoah now? Is it still 6 million? Or has that figure been revised down again? It's hard to keep it all straight what with the 19 million holocaust survivors running around demanding reparations from the Swiss.

    • stern

      You really are quite a sick puppy, aren't you AC?I suggest you do a little research and you may discover that the numbers you quote – albeit ironically, I'm sure – are simply impossible. And you sneering at people who survived the horrors of the Shoah shows just what kind of a nasty piece of work you are.

      • Atlas_Collins

        I'm not a jew, stern, so your religious myths have little meaning for me. All I can say is that anytime it's "illegal" to question "official history" there's obviously a problem somewhere.

        And actually, I have done a little research on the matter — both the "official" sources and those that you would most likely consider "criminally revisionist". My considered opinion is that the large T Truth probably lies somewhere in the middle between your Shoah Myth and the contentions of the "deniers".

        Oh wait? Have I "offended" you? Should I be put in a camp for expressing my "considered opinion" and be "re-educated"? Or maybe just some jail time and a nice hefty fine like they do in Europe?

        • Spirit_Of_1683

          What book were you reading, Naziboy's monkey? Something written by David Irving, I'll guess. Then you probably think Noddy lives in Auschwitz.

          • Atlas_Collins

            I've reviewed a variety of sources. Do you think it's "criminal" to question the "official" story?

            How Orwellian of you.

          • MixMChess

            Perhaps not "criminal" but certainly morally reprehensible.

          • Jacob

            Atlas, allow me to suggest another source to add to your variety: a book called "Denying History" by Michael Shermer (historian of science and editor of Skeptic Magazine) and Alex Grobman. You might learn something from it — if your brain isn't completely glued together by Jew-hatred.

          • Atlas_Collins

            I've read it, Jacob. Please forgive me for not being emotionally-invested in the jew narrative and whole-heartedly asserting that I believe the "holocaust" was the worstest, baddest most evil thing that ever happened to any people anywhere ever in the whole history of the universe.

            Forgive me also for finding it somewhat hard to believe that a nation engaged in a multiple-front total war would spare the logistical resources necessary to engage in the industrial mass-slaughter of "6 millions jews" and the additional millions of various other "undesirables".

            But I wasn't there, so I don't know. But I'll wager that you weren't there either, Jacob, so you can't know either, can you?

    • DON

      Two Thirds of the European Jewish population were murdered because of people just like you! On one hand like a later comment, you seem to not care about Jews, "your religious myths have little meaning for me." But yet with your demeaning statements and ridiculing Holocaust survivors–it shows exactly who you are–an obsessed to the bone anti-Semite! These are people who give off flippant remarks regarding Jews trying to prove their indifference but then almost within the same breath they'll say something so out right toxic about Jews–it shows that deep down their nothing but an obsessed to the bone anti-Semite! And that's you!!

      • Atlas_Collins

        "Two Thirds of the European Jewish population were murdered because of people just like you!"

        Really Don? I understand that's the narrative that can't be questioned lest one be accused of being a "racist anti-semite". So I'll ask you as well: should I be imprisoned for having the temerity to "offend" you by even obliquely questioning the official holocaust story? How much of a fine should I hand over to some Shoah Foundation because I made a flippant remark about all the "holocaust survivors" that always come out of the woodwork whenever there's money to be had that can be traced to the diabolical crimes of the Nazis?

        • DON

          I haven't bothered to look at this link for about a day because I've said my peace! But your response proves to me one thing–you have an anti-social personality! Therefore, it would be downright sheer idiocy for me to attempt to engage in communication with you. This post is not for you but for everyone else, this person is incapable of learning from mistakes, must blame everyone else, is abusive to others without a lack of insight to his actions, relies on deceit rather than knowledge, feels superior and that's just for starters! This person no longer exists to me and you'd be wise to do the same! If you feel you can talk rationally with a person who has an anti-social personality, I suggest you volunteer at your local hospital's psychiatric ward–you might have better success than trying to respond to Atlas Collins!

    • Ghostwriter

      AC,you're an anti-semitic jerk. Not only do you attack Holocaust survivors,a number of whom live in this country,but you also ignore the weight of evidence. How about the testimonies of Allied solders who liberated the death camps? How about the blueprints for those places? The minutes of the Wansee conference that started the whole thing off?
      Even the testimonies of people like Eichmann and others like him? Do you discount those things? Atlas,the Holocaust isn't a fantasy,it's a historical fact. There is too much evidence that says it does. Maybe you should read some Elie Wiesel or others like him,if you're interested. But I doubt it. You're too busy reading "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or "Mein Kampf" to care.

      • MixMChess

        Atlas is a blinded by hate, logic, common sense and basic historical facts went out the window with him a long time ago.

      • Atlas_Collins

        > "AC,you're an anti-semitic jerk"

        It's hard to refrain from pulling out your weapon-words and engaging in ad hominems on this issue, isn't it?

        I haven't "attacked holocaust survivors" aside from showing amazement that so many of them seem to be around 65 years later to demand that Swiss bankers give them money.

        Nor have I ignored any evidence whatsoever — including the evidence that the deniers present. Nowhere have I said that something terrible and horrific did not happen. What I have said, and quite clearly, is that I think the actual truth lies "somewhere between the Shoah myth and the contentions of the deniers".

        How does this make me "anti-semitic"? Because I don't take as graven-in-stone Received Truth every utterance and anecdote and pronouncement of those who's lives and livelihoods are invested in the Shoah?

        And I also note no one has answered my repeated question: should I be imprisoned or punished in some way for daring to even question this Received Truth?

        Hate has nothing to do with my questioning, Ghostwriter, in spite of Mr. MixMChess's poorly constructed sentence above. Logic, however, does play a role in my questioning. I simply find it unlikely that a country engaged in a vicious three-front total war — with enemies closing in on all sides, with bombs falling and soldiers and civilians dying day and night without pause — would expend the logistical resources needed to industrially exterminate the number of people that the Shoah Myth purports were exterminated.

        It's really as simple as that, Mr. Ghostwriter. Think about it. The Germans couldn't keep gas in their tanks or airplanes, but somehow they kept the crematoria at Auschwitz burning 24/7 for 5 years? By what logic do you believe that that is exactly what they did, while at the same time they couldn't keep gas in their tanks and airplanes?

        And judging by the number of ad hominems flung at me in this thread, as well as the flurry of petulant negs, all I can say is that certain of you are as bad as the muslims when it comes to your "Holy Writ" being questioned.

  • Chiggles

    Caught diddling a goose, Chomsky claimed he was fluffing up a bolster.

  • Taim

    A biased and smearing article.

    We should all support freedom of speech.

    • MixMChess

      Of course we should support freedom of speech. Which is why I support the article's author David Stein to speak up and highlight Chomsky's unsavory associations. Why would you deny the author his freedom of speech to highlight the fact that Chomsky lends his support to neo-Nazis and actively supported the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia?

  • Ghostwriter

    It seems to me that this Chomsky guy would make a great villain in a novel,comic book,or movie. He really doesn't seem to care about anyone,outside of himself.

  • Jason

    Most of the posts here are nutty.

    He defends freedom of speech for EVERYONE, even for the people he most disagrees with.

    If we don't believe in freedom of speech for the views we despite, then we don't believe in it at all. THAT'S the point here.

    AFTER we've gotten over that topic ^^^^^^^^, then can we begin to talk about Faurisson's work. Faurisson is an anti-jew racist. Chomsky himself says he disagrees with him. But he, and anyone who believes in freedom, must defend his right to say it.

    Most of the comments here are nutty to me, yet I would fight for all of your rights to say everything you said.

  • BuckeyeRick


    Did you READ the article in its entirety? Chomsky's letters prove that his claim to defend free speech is a fraud. If you know anything about Chomsky, you understand that he wouldn't hesitate for a moment to deprive someone of their free speech if that person's opinions differ from his own. That is the modus operandi of his Leftist ilk. Lie and attack attack the truth.

  • Jerry Nuss

    All of the Chomsky apologists who’ve been making excuses like “he didn’t know who those horrible deniers were” miss the obvious point that by 1984 he was WELL AWARE because, after he spoke out for Faurisson in ’79, he had been MADE aware by people bombarding him with the facts about Faurisson, the IHR, and the rest. In 1978, maybe he could plead ignorance. But by 1984, he had been told, repeatedly, who these people are.

  • Justin

    it takes a genius to point out what so many others have tried to assert for decades, unsuccessfully. i detect a hint of plagiarism, as i have seen this exact argument used, and published, by more scholarly men in major publications, unsuccessfully.

    he who does not support faurisson's right to speak stupidly, or support one's responsibility to support another's right to speak stupidly, does not believe in free speech. until the author admits that he contributes nothing to this so-called argument.

    try reading someone's actual work before you start making statements about what that person believes, otherwise you just look good to other dummies who do the same.

    meanwhile, grown-ups are doing work around the world…

  • Jerry Nuss

    Hey lil’ Justin – what exactly is it that you find so threatening, so dangerous, about these letters that you feel the need to attack the article’s author like that? It seems rather simple to me. Chomsky bent over backwards to pretend that he had no interest in, or knowledge of, the deniers’ work. His letters show otherwise. These letters don’t prove that he’s a denier – they just prove that he’s a liar. Deal with it, Justy.

  • Jerry Nuss

    Another funny aspect about the loons who are criticizing this article: I bet they’re the same ones who are rabid Wikileaks supporters! As a liberal establishment-approved “Great Man,” shouldn’t all of Chomsky’s correspondences be made public? Doesn’t the public have a “right” to see everything he wrote? Let’s release it all, and let the public make up their minds about what it means.

  • Zach Petty

    When you write hit pieces like this, you have become the Nazi.

  • Atlas_Collins

    I hate all dem Joos cause I got such a tiny insignificant petsele in my trousers

  • alexander

    Chompski – shake Ayer's hand again and march hand in hand into the Nowhereland…
    Do you really vomit every time you look in a mirror?


    For a group that likes to complain about the supposed free speech problem on college campuses, you are all sure up in arms about a man defending free speech. How about attacking the views of the man Chomsky is defending rather than attacking the person fighting for his right to have those views in the first place? Because that would be too difficult?

  • atlas_collins

    I hate all dem Joos cause I have such a tiny pecker. It is not even big enough to place my swastika tattoo!!

  • digital82711

    What you idiots fail to acknowledge is that once you put government in a position to decide what can and can't be said you place yopurself under the worst for of government tyranny, that of government deciding what is acceptable thought. You moron should know better, but what would you expect from people who are Zionst zealots. By the way, Chomsky is not anti-Israel. He seeks to prevent Israel from harming itself through doing to the Palestianins that which was done to Jews.

  • Kevin Myers sometimes writes about Williamson

    You’ve got great insights about Bishop Williamson, keep up the good work!