|
@johnpaulpagano | |||||
|
Think about the type of mind that generates the phrase “questioned Holocaust orthodoxies”. pic.twitter.com/f7osbUnaEA
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
John-Paul Pagano
@johnpaulpagano
|
2. velj |
|
Of course, this is a standardized lie that Chomsky flacks use. Chomsky went beyond his pointed selection of Faurisson as a free speech cause to sanitize the French Holocaust-denier as a “relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.”
|
||
|
|
||
|
John-Paul Pagano
@johnpaulpagano
|
2. velj |
|
There’s a subtle key in Greenwald’s framing—Faurisson “questioned Holocaust orthodoxies”—that exemplifies the oppositional nihilism of Chomsky and his imitators.
|
||
|
|
||
|
John-Paul Pagano
@johnpaulpagano
|
2. velj |
|
No one denies that Robert Faurisson is a Holocaust-denier—no one, except subtly, Noam Chomsky, who originally recast Faurisson as a “relatively apolitical liberal”, and Greenwald, who now says that Faurisson “questioned Holocaust orthodoxies.”
|
||
|
|
||
|
John-Paul Pagano
@johnpaulpagano
|
2. velj |
|
If pressed, Greenwald would likely admit that Faurisson is a Holocaust-denier, because it would be too damaging to equivocate. (Chomsky, whose moral idiocy operated in an earlier era, might have continued to wriggle. Let me know, if you can.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
John-Paul Pagano
@johnpaulpagano
|
2. velj |
|
But why not admit it loudly from the beginning? To immediately and clearly admit that Faurisson is a rank Holocaust-denier would have strengthened their pose in defense of free speech. Yet both Chomsky and Greenwald’s initial instinct was to recast Faurisson as something else.
|
||
|
|
||
|
John-Paul Pagano
@johnpaulpagano
|
2. velj |
|
It’s only later, when criticized, that Chomsky and Greenwald go to the mattresses with their rationale about Holocaust-denial being irrelevant to defending free expression, or making it more urgent. Because it serves them, they purport THEN to be clear-eyed about Faurisson.
|
||
|
|
||
|
John-Paul Pagano
@johnpaulpagano
|
2. velj |
|
This subtle shifting, like the rhetorical equivalent of an infected tooth, indicates the rot at the base of the oppositional nihilism Chomsky & Greenwald represent: it’s not principled, it’s about ANY principle, that erodes the foundations of our society, which they simply hate.
|
||
|
|
||
|
John-Paul Pagano
@johnpaulpagano
|
2. velj |
|
It indicates that the oppositional nihilism that Chomsky and Greenwald represent is not about critically challenging ourselves or seeking the truth. It is meant to manufacture uncertainty about the truth, so we destroy ourselves.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Jäger von Heinrich Kramer
@jaegervonkramer
|
2. velj |
|
I'm sure you're already familiar with it but @DavidNeiwert recounts Greenwald's history of defending Nazis.
dneiwert.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-po…
|
||
|
|
||
|
John-Paul Pagano
@johnpaulpagano
|
2. velj |
|
I am, but I’ve been on this squalid Greenwald beat since like 2006. I’m actually the one who first found that Greenwald had been illegally recording people while defending Matthew Hale, which Neiwert mentions. johnpaulpagano.com/2008/05/illega…
|
||
|
|
||