Chomsky’s Secret Letters to a Holocaust DenierBreaking News
The denier in question is L.A. “Lou” Rollins. At the time of the first Chomsky correspondence, Rollins was a writer and contributing editor at the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), the North American headquarters of Holocaust denial and Nazi literature. And although the IHR has, in the past two decades, attempted to reinvent itself as a “respectable” Holocaust denial institute by eschewing clumsy, vulgar anti-Semitism in favor of pseudo-academic “historiography,” back in 1984 there was no subtlety in the IHR’s presentation. The publishing arm of the IHR sold such titles as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” the “pro-Hitler” reprint of “Mein Kampf,” “The Testament of Adolf Hitler,” “The International Jew,” “The Turner Diaries,” KKK leader David Duke’s autobiography “My Awakening,” and various anti-Semitic and white supremacy booklets and leaflets. Contributors to the IHR included former SS Standartenführer Leon Degrelle, and former Nazi General Otto Ernst Remer....
It is against this backdrop that Chomsky and Rollins corresponded. In the first of the recently uncovered letters, Chomsky expresses happiness that Rollins was able to find Chomsky’s anti-Israel book “The Fateful Triangle” useful in his work. Chomsky tells Rollins that he’s pleased to hear that he (Rollins) is writing about Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who Chomsky proceeds to call “one of the major frauds of our time.” He compares Wiesel to Nazi collaborators, and accuses him of “exploiting the Holocaust to justify oppression and murder.”
Chomsky promises to send Rollins “news clippings from the Jewish press” to assist him with his anti-Wiesel screed (Rollins’ Chomsky-assisted essay would appear in the fall 1985 edition of the IHR’s “journal”).
Chomsky closes by writing, “I’m looking forward to hearing more about your study.”...
comments powered by Disqus
Helena Kaplan - 2/11/2011
I like a lot of Chomsky’s work, but I can’t make excuses for him on this one. By 1984, he knew exactly what those nuts were all about (especially because people had been alerting him ever since he spoke out for Faurisson in 1979). This is a shameful episode in his life.
Donald Wolberg - 2/11/2011
The Chomsky bizarre side seems to have been embedded earlier than most knew, and appears to have been a deeper disturbance than most knew. This "tarnish" speaks for some issue in Chomsky that cannot be explained by age, and is certainly a pathology of reason.
Arthur Essen - 2/11/2011
Very interesting piece. As someone who remembers “L’Affaire Faurisson” quite well, I can’t help but think that Chomsky understood, in 1984, the gravity of corresponding with deniers in such a friendly and helpful way. I’m surprised these letters didn’t leak out sooner. Perhaps Prof. Chomsky will have comment.