Noam Chomsky is a gift that keeps on giving…
From: «Noam Chomsky» [email protected] undefined
Date: July 3, 2011 21:47:40 GMT+01:00
To: [email protected] undefined
Subject: honesty
Reply to: [email protected] undefined
Someone sent me your blog, where you quote my letters which were, of course, personal correspondences. No honest person publishes such things without consent. If I don’t respond to you again, you will understand why.
From: Alek Boyd [email protected] undefined
Date: July 3, 2011 23:08:44 GMT+01:00
To: [email protected] undefined
Subject: Re: honesty
Dear Professor Chomsky,
Your latest communication leaves me completely bewildered. Honestly.
Honesty: –noun. 1. the quality or fact of being honest; uprightness and fairness. 2. truthfulness, sincerity, or frankness. 3. freedom from deception or fraud.
Forgive me, professor, but I needed to check the dictionary, as English is not my mother tongue. Your appeal to honesty is entirely unwarranted and, coming from you, utterly unacceptable. And I’ll explain why, if you have the patience with me.
Your apology for Hugo Chávez, the president of my country, has become quite notorious. Like other radical leftists, or useful idiots as they’re commonly known, I tend to think that before Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999, perhaps you couldn’t find Venezuela on a map, but I could be wrong. Regardless, I clearly remember the exchange we had earlier regarding human rights issues, when Human Rights Watch published a very comprehensive report on the systematic abuses perpetrated by Chávez’s regime in recent years. The HRW report was not news, it was not breaking news about an unknown situation. Amnesty International had previously issued equally scathing reports on human rights violations in Venezuela. And so did the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Reporters Without Borders, the International Federation for Human Rights, the European Union, and almost all NGOs or human rights personalities worldwide.
And yet, when I first contacted you regarding that ridiculous and propagandistic letter against the HRW report that your Chávez handlers (probably Greg Wilpert) had you sign jointly, which you happily did without fact-checking, as you admitted, you demonstrated that regarding Venezuela and Hugo Chávez, you accepted unfounded propaganda as fact. I remember writing to you: “I guess you are as prone to abandon the minimal standards of accuracy—to align yourself with ideological partners—as your neighbor…”
By signing that letter, you showed a total ignorance of the real situation in Venezuela. You displayed total ignorance of Venezuelan legislation. You showed total ignorance of the international human rights treaties, civil and political, signed and ratified by Venezuela, which, by the way, are binding. But worst of all, you displayed a reckless disregard for demonstrable and easily verifiable facts, facts that were there at your fingertips if you had the slightest desire to double-check if what you demanded from HRW in that letter had any basis in reality. Unfortunately, you didn’t. You behaved in the most dishonest manner possible, as you have done for many years regarding numerous issues in countries you are completely unaware of.
So allow me, Professor Chomsky, to be bewildered. Allow me to question your mental sanity, your ethical stance, and your morality. How dare you ask for honesty when nearly all your statements on political issues lack it? You may be a great linguist, as some say. You might very well be the most admired and influential intellectual on the left. Though honest you are not. Because an honest person knows that expertise in a very specific field is not transferable to unrelated fields. As a linguist, you wouldn’t accept criticism of your work from a geologist. Likewise, I can’t accept your nauseating apologies for Hugo Chávez and others of his kind, as you know nothing about the history, politics, economics, etc. of my country, beyond the propaganda you have chosen to take as gospel. Your opinions on Venezuela, evidently, are based first and foremost on your twisted ideological understanding of the world, utterly ignorant of the facts. That is, of course, your prerogative, but if you were really honest, you wouldn’t be asking for honesty.
And speaking of honesty, you should be informed that Eva Golinger, a propagandist on the payroll of Hugo Chávez, has published the communication you sent me without attribute, as if she had received it, of course. I believe in your academic world that’s called plagiarism.
As for the publishing of our exchanges, which you consider personal correspondence, let me remind you of Bradley Manning, for whom you show, rightly, much concern. Manning thought that publishing confidential information was in the interest of our societies. Similarly, I believe that publishing my exchanges with you, without ever intending to put the two cases in the same context, is very beneficial. The world needs to understand how deranged you, those you admire, and those who admire you are, and these exchanges are the perfect way to do it.
In conclusion, I fully understand if you never want to respond to my messages again. However, don’t worry, I’m done with you.
Best wishes,
alek boyd
UPDATE: Noam Chomsky came back for more. I won’t dignify him with additional responses:
From: «Noam Chomsky» [email protected] undefined
Date: July 4, 2011 01:58:56 GMT+01:00
To: «‘Alek Boyd’» [email protected] undefined
Subject: RE: honesty
Reply to: [email protected] undefined
Lay off the word “honestly.” You know why I can’t respond to this extraordinary performance.