Chomsky vs. Chavez and/or Chomsky vs. The Guardian


This is cross posted by our friends at the blog, Simply Jews. (The cartoon below, which I simply couldn’t resist including, was posted at the blog of one of the characters in the following saga, Alek Boyd)

Mastermind of the Century (the last one) decided to spice the current century. The story is simply delicious. It starts with an article by Rory Carroll where Chomsky criticizes Comical Hugo for his inhuman treatment of judge María Lourdes Afiuni, for his dictatorship, including hardly believable (for Chomsky) sentences like “Concentration of executive power, unless it’s very temporary and for specific circumstances, such as fighting world war two, is an assault on democracy.” 

One might want to ask the Mastermind where has he been for the last twelve years, when Caudillo stripped Venezuela of its democratic institutions, building up his ersatz socialism. Weren’t Chavez’ intentions clear from the day one?

But let’s go back to the story. Guardian, you see, was very excited for some reason about the rift opening between the hitherto best buddies: Noam and Hugo. So excited that the headline they’ve chosen says Noam Chomsky denounces old friend Hugo Chávez for ‘assault’ on democracy. Which is a bit of exaggeration indeed: whatever Mastermind said is not such a scalding denunciation of Comical Hugo, rather a liver-spotted finger shaken in his general direction. Of course, our Mastermind, hilariously egged on by a blogger, blames the hapless Guardian in “extreme dishonesty”. A classic case of pot calling kettle.

Well, the next act of the drama follows: The Guardian, hurt to its bone marrow by the accusations of the Mastermind (but also mindful of their previous clash with the latter) produces a transcript of Rory Carroll’s interview. It’s quite a boring reading and, to be frank, still doesn’t support the headline that so riled the Mastermind.

So, we have here not only a rift opening between Chaves and Chomsky but also one opening between two important disinformation sources of the free world. Two birds and no stone wasted. Cool.

And, of course, as a bonus, the priceless correspondence between the Mastermind and Alek Boyd – the blogger mentioned already. Here is the second part of it. There are quite a few interesting passages in both parts, but I shall quote only a sentence: 

The world needs to understand just how unhinged you, those you admire, and those who admire you, are, and these exchanges are just the perfect way to do it.

Indeed. I would suggest adding ” and those who admire those who admire you” for completeness, but it’s excellent as it is.

P.S. Still, I tend to disagree with Alek on Manning. Whatever the rights and wrongs, the man took the POTUS’ dime

11 comments on “Chomsky vs. Chavez and/or Chomsky vs. The Guardian

  1. How anyone can take Chomsky seriously is beyond me.

    On the other hand, how anyone can take the Guardian seriously, is beyond me.

    So logic suggests that only Chomsky and the Guardian take each other seriously :-)

  2. hardly believable (for Chomsky) sentences like “Concentration of executive power, unless it’s very temporary and for specific circumstances, such as fighting world war two, is an assault on democracy.”

    But that’s not “hardly believable” for Chomsky. It’s bullshit to imply that he has criticised the US (or indeed UK) for pulling out the stoppers to fight Nazi Germany.

    That said: of course Chomsky has been rather (and that’s an understatement) late in criticising Chavez.

    But what does this have to do with anti-Semitism at the Guardian?

      • Chomsky is NOT a defender of Holocaust deniers. He has said that “even to question the holocaust is to lose one’s humanity.” What he defends is freedom of speech, which means that idiots who deny the holocaust are entitled to their opinions and shouldn’t be imprisoned for expressing them. A belief in freedom of speech cannot be selective- ie. you only defend views you like. You believe in freedom of speech or not. This is Chomsky’s well-documented stance on the matter and to misrepresent him in this way is simply twisted. As for him supporting anti-semites, again it’s nonsense, but hey, don’t let anything so minor as the truth stop you spouting your bile.

    • The Guardian published Chomsky’s letter demanding to allow intothe UK the hate-preacher Salah and called him a fighter for justice and human rights. (Certainly he is fighting for the rights od minorities, gays and women)

    • pretzelberg,

      You are right in one sense: the sentence as quoted could be interpreted as you stated. I should have added “regarding Venezuelan regime” and not leave it too general, which gives room for such interpretation.

      The post is about Chomsky and Chavez, so I assumed that the context is clear, obviously I was wrong.

    • Oh, and by the way: Chomsky is too young to criticize the US/UK for fighting Nazis. But whether he wouldn’t have criticized the former for going to war against the latter is a big open question. Some so called “progressives” have done exactly that, if you remember.

    • Goes the The Guardian’s distorted and bigoted view of the world.

      For them, the greatest dangers to world peace are the USA and Israel.

      Not Islamists.

      Not violent communists

      Actually, what they really mean is that the US stands firm against communism and socialism and Islamism is as good a tool as any to confront The United States of America.

      The United States of America, for me, while far from perfect, is a beacon of light unto nations. A statement like that in a Guardian Editorial meeting would probably cause a sudden serious rise in the blood pressure of those seated around the (lush) table accompanied with red faces and serious breathlessness.

      The poor dears.

      .

Comments are closed.