The last few days were a bit hectic. Noam Chomsky, renowned apologist of Hugo Chavez, said to The Guardian’s Rory Carroll that Hugo Chavez is carrying out an «assault» on democracy. Nothing controversial there, any observer with a minimum of objectivity and independence is aware of the dictatorial little project that the Venezuelan caudillo is carrying out. But of course, it was a shock to me, given the source of the criticism: i.e. Chomsky. So I sent him an email, which became a rather interesting exchange, for Chomsky replied to me accusing The Guardian of «extreme dishonesty». Again, nothing new there, unless you are an objectivity-impaired radical communist that continues to admire Castro, Chavez, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and their cheerleader Chomsky.
Eva Golinger, described by the New York Times, a paper Chomsky seems to respect, as «one of the most prominent fixtures of Venezuela’s expanding state propaganda complex», plagiarised in her State-funded rag, without attribution, a literal translation of my correspondence with Chomsky, stressing that Chomsky had been misinterpreted. Given how high in the chavista propaganda apparatus Golinger works, the news were reprinted in Venezuelan State media. So The Guardian had to react, and it did, by publishing the whole interview transcript. In the paragraphs preceding the transcript, I am referred to as a blogger, instead of by name. It could well be because I have had my run-ins with The Guardian in the past, due to its, erm, extreme dishonesty.
But then, Chavez apologists and outfits run by blinkered people, are using my correspondence with Chomsky, without attribution. One would think that so fresh after the Johann Hari fiasco, leftists would avoid «pulling a Hari», i.e. plagiarise. But no, the message just doesn’t seem to have sunk in. Worse still, these people would like us to believe that the world’s most respected intellectual replies to all manner of different questions with exactly the same words. Like Ed Miliband. Some are even accusing me of things I haven’t done, without using my name. I wonder why that is.
So here’s a message: if you are one of those that come to this page to try and use my arguments against me, at least, have the decency of referring to me correctly. The name is Alek Boyd, not some obscure blogger that gets a kick out of impersonating an Arab gay woman. If you are going to accuse me of things, have at least the decency of backing your spurious bullshit with verifiable evidence, if you can find it. Here’s looking at you Media Lens*. Own up. Have courage of conviction. The best thing you lot could do though, is stay as far away as possible from issues, i.e. Venezuela, about which your arrogance, racism and ignorance are not the most salient characteristics of your arguments.
* Media Lens has falsely accused me of things they can not prove. By pressing the link, the message I sent them can be read. However, please note that they haven’t posted my message in the article in question «‘Extreme Dishonesty’ – The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela», but in a message board. So I’ve sent another email, to see whether they practice what they preach and demand from others:
From: Alek Boyd [email protected]
Date: 6 July 2011 17:20:45 GMT+01:00
To: [email protected]
Subject: PS: ‘Extreme Dishonesty’ – The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela
Dear Editors,
Further to my previous communication, which you have published in another page (message board) rather than in the article referred to, I find extremely dishonest that you would not include it in the article in question. Had I had any desire in engaging in Media Lens’ message board, I would have already done it.
Therefore, I respectfully request that my original message, unedited, is posted at the bottom of the article, like you have done with your communications with Rory Carroll, since you have referred to me inappropriately and falsely.
Cordially,
Alek Boyd
Update: I’ve just notice that the piece from Media Lens «‘Extreme Dishonesty’ – The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela» has been posted in Chomsky.info, which is Noam Chomsky’s official website. That would not be an issue, of course, if either Media Lens or Chomsky had had the intellectual honesty of admitting that my correspondence with Chomsky has been used, without clear attribution, as if Chomsky had replied to all «Activists and bloggers» requesting explanations from him with exactly the same words. Media Lens, and Chomsky, lead readers to conclude that Chomsky prepared a set of answers, presumably to completely different questions, and sent those to friends and foes alike around the world. Media Lens, and Chomsky, claim that to «a question» from Chavez apologist Joe Emersberger, Chomsky reply was:
‘The Guardian/Observer version, as I anticipated, is quite deceptive. The report in the NY Times is considerably more honest. Both omit much of relevance that I stressed throughout, including the fact that criticisms from the US government or anyone who supports its actions can hardly be taken seriously, considering Washington’s far worse record without any of the real concerns that Venezuela faces, the Manning case for one [Manning is the alleged source for huge amounts of restricted material passed on to WikiLeaks], which is much worse than Judge Afiuni’s. And much else. [content in brackets added by Media Lens and/or Chomsky]
Chomsky’s reply to my question:
The Guardian/Observer version, as I anticipated, is quite deceptive. The report in the NY Times is considerably more honest. Both however omit much of relevance that I stressed throughout, including the fact that criticisms from the US government or anyone who supports its actions can hardly be taken seriously, considering Washington’s far worse record without any of the real concerns that Venezuela faces, the Manning case for one, which is much worse than Judge Afiuni’s. And much else.
That’s how «honest» the Left’s most «influential intellectual» really is.
Tomado de Message to Chomsky lovers visiting this blog [Updated]