Noam Chomsky is the gift that keeps on giving…
From: «Noam Chomsky» [email protected]
Date: 3 July 2011 21:47:40 GMT+01:00
To: [email protected]
Subject: honesty
Reply-To: [email protected]
A person has sent me your blog, where you quote letters of mine that were, of course, personal correspondence. No honest individual would post such materials without permission. If I don’t get back to you, you’ll know why.
From: Alek Boyd [email protected]
Date: 3 July 2011 23:08:44 GMT+01:00
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: honesty
Dear Professor Chomsky,
Your last message leaves me completely puzzled. Honestly.
Honesty: –noun. 1. the quality or fact of being honest; uprightness and fairness. 2. truthfulness, sincerity, or directness. 3. freedom from deceit or fraud.
Forgive me, Professor, but I had to check the dictionary since English is not my first language. Your call for honesty is utterly unjustified, and, coming from you, it’s completely unacceptable. Please allow me to explain why, if you don’t mind.
Your defence of Hugo Chavez, the president of my country, has gained quite a reputation. Like other radical leftists, or what your group often calls useful idiots, I tend to think you probably couldn’t point out Venezuela on a map before Chavez took power in 1999, but I could be mistaken. Regardless, I vividly remember our previous exchange regarding human rights when Human Rights Watch published a detailed report on the systemic abuses committed by the Chavez regime over the past years. This HRW report was not new; it wasn’t breaking news about an unknown issue. Amnesty International had previously released similar critical reports about human rights violations in Venezuela. So did the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, Reporters Without Borders, the International Federation of Human Rights, the European Union, and virtually every human rights NGO or figure worldwide.
And yet, when I first wrote to you about that ridiculous and propagandistic letter against HRW’s report that your chavista handlers (likely Greg Wilpert) asked you to co-sign, which you willingly did without verifying facts, as you later admitted, you showed that regarding Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, you have accepted baseless propaganda as truth. I remember telling you: «I assume you are as prone to sacrifice minimum accuracy standards -to side with ideological allies- as the guy next door…»
By signing that letter, you exhibited total ignorance of the real conditions in Venezuela. You showed total ignorance about Venezuela’s laws. You displayed total ignorance regarding international human, civil, and political rights treaties that Venezuela has signed and ratified, which are binding, by the way. But worst of all, you exhibited a blatant disregard for verifiable facts, facts that were available to you if you had made even the slightest effort to check whether what you demanded from HRW had any factual basis. Unfortunately, you didn’t. You acted in the most dishonest way possible, as you have done for many years regarding numerous other issues in countries that are completely foreign to you.
So let me, Professor Chomsky, be puzzled. Let me question your mental state, your ethical position, and your morals. How dare you call for honesty when nearly all your statements about political matters lack it? You may be a remarkable linguist, as some suggest, and you may well be the Left’s most respected and influential intellectual. But honest you are not. An honest individual understands that expertise in one specific field does not transfer to unrelated areas. As a linguist, you wouldn’t accept criticism from a geologist regarding your work. Similarly, I cannot accept your nauseating defence of Hugo Chavez and others like him, for you know nothing about the history, politics, economics, etc., of my country beyond the propaganda you have chosen to accept as truth. Your views on Venezuela are evidently shaped primarily by your warped ideological perspective, completely ignoring the facts. That is, of course, your right, but if you were truly honest, you wouldn’t be advocating for honesty.
Speaking of honesty, you should know that Eva Golinger, a propagandist paid by Hugo Chavez, has published the communication you sent me, as if you had sent it to her, without attribution, of course. In your academic circles, I believe that’s called plagiarism.
Regarding the publication of our exchanges, which you label personal correspondence, let me remind you of Bradley Manning, someone about whom you express, rightly, much concern. Manning believed that sharing confidential information was in the interest of society. Similarly, I believe that publishing my exchanges with you, never intending to equate the two situations, is invaluable. The world needs to see just how unbalanced you, those you admire, and your admirers truly are, and our exchanges are an ideal way to illustrate this.
In closing, I completely understand if you choose never to respond to my messages again. Don’t worry, I’m done with you.
With best wishes,
Alek Boyd
UPDATE: Noam Chomsky responded again. I will not grace him with further replies:
From: «Noam Chomsky» [email protected]
Date: 4 July 2011 01:58:56 GMT+01:00
To: «‘Alek Boyd’» [email protected]
Subject: RE: honesty
Reply-To: [email protected]
Drop the word “honestly.” You know why I can’t respond to this extraordinary performance.