Pity Max Blumenthal and Electronic Intifada. After presumably spending countless hours investigating Islamophobia, “exposing” Thor Halvorssen‘s connections to it, and “alerting” the Norwegian government and Amnesty International, both dismissed them as irrelevant. I can only imagine how challenging it is to undertake this work, aiming to reveal the “dark” ties and informing the world that Thor has “connections with the Islamophobes who inspired mass murderer Anders Breivik“, only to be dismissed by some of the world’s most respected governments and human rights organizations as irrelevant. That’s quite a note for their CVs, you know—it’s now part of the public record.
Google Alerts are a handy tool for staying updated on what others write about topics of interest. I received one the other day notifying me that Blumenthal mentioned my name on the fringe website Electronic Intifada in a conspiratorial rant against Thor Halvorssen and the Oslo Freedom Forum (OFF). I want to clarify that I haven’t kept up with Thor’s confrontations with others in the press. I was hired in 2008 by the NGO he founded, the Human Rights Foundation (HRF). While I believe we achieved great things together, such as securing the release of Guadalupe Llori from illegal detention by Ecuador’s Rafael Correa and providing the much-needed technical support to Cuban freedom fighters before Alan Gross, our partnership ended abruptly. Nevertheless, I think I played a key role in the success of HRF’s first OFF in 2009 and its subsequent relationships with the late Vaclav Havel. A lot has happened since then; while Havel has passed, OFF appears to be on a path to lasting success, and the more successful it becomes, the fiercer the attacks from irrelevant radicals like Blumenthal.
In 2010, a publication associated with Norway’s far left, known as Manifest, first “unearthed” my prior association with Thor. At that time, I chose not to respond. Manifest, along with Blumenthal recently, have repeated unfounded accusations against me originally made by Calvin Tucker, a London-based extremist with a murky history of violence. I’m not about to defend Thor; he has a media megaphone and access to people I can only dream of, but I will point out that if the strategy left by his critics is guilt by association, he really has nothing to worry about. And if the only defense my critics have left is to continually cite Tucker’s out-of-context reference to a nightmare I had nearly ten years ago, well, they are really out of options.
The article by Calvin Tucker in The Guardian’s Comment is Free is the favored source for those who want to criticize me—and with the 14-month association with HRF—Thor. They seem to overlook that Tucker is anything but an authoritative source on anything related to Venezuela, myself, human rights, or objective journalism; instead, he is a nostalgic Stalinist, someone so unhinged as to take pride in having disfigured someone so badly that the victim needed reconstructive surgery. Tucker and those who take him seriously are part of a like-minded ideological intifada that supports the violent struggle of the far left as a legitimate stance. They bizarrely view my arguments against violence as their only means to confront authoritarian regimes like that of Hugo Chávez, which is deemed unacceptable. This may stem from Chávez being an icon of the far left, akin to Hamas, Arafat, Castro, communism, Stalin, Che Guevara, etc. Holding up a proverbial mirror to them is considered an intolerable affront. Because only their side has “moral justification” (dixit Tucker) to forcibly remove “corrupt governments… that have lost all right to democratic legitimacy.” Thus, Chávez’s attempted assassination and coup against the democratically elected Carlos Andrés Pérez = good; terrorism against Israel = good; Fidel Castro’s coup against Batista and 54 years of communist dictatorship = good; Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror = good; but any similar stance against Chávez, Arafat/OLP/Hamas, Fidel Castro, communism = REALLY INTOLERABLE!!!!!
Intellectual honesty and consistency, clearly, are not strengths of Blumenthal et al. Let’s take just a couple of irrelevant accusations from Blumenthal against Thor published by Electronic Intifada:
“The forms show that the Human Rights Foundation received approximately $600,000 in donations from the Donors Capital Fund from 2007 to 2011. Based in Northern Virginia, the Donors Capital Fund is essentially a slush fund for right-wing donors that finance the conservative movement. Electronic Intifada’s analysis of IRS filings by Donors Capital Fund and Donors Trust shows that the Human Rights Foundation received $764,950 from 2005 to 2011 from Donors Capital Fund and Donors Trust, with all except about $5,000 coming from Donors Capital Fund. Due to multiple donors and the fact that donor names are not disclosed, contributions made through the Donors Capital Fund are hard to trace,” noted the Center for American Progress in its 2011 report “Fear, Inc.” “Potential donors must open a minimum account of $1 million to use the fund’s services.”
Is it $600,000 or $764,950? A slush fund? Like “money intended for a vaguely defined but legitimate purpose that is instead stealthily used for an illegitimate one,” according to Blumenthal’s unfounded writings in Electronic Intifada? In a shorter period (2006 – 2010), the parent organization of Electronic Intifada (Middle East Cultural and Charitable Society or MECCS), whose stated mission is “education and elimination of discrimination” (talk about a vague definition…) received $1,282,034 in undefined funds. What’s the source of that funding?
Moreover, the parent organization of Electronic Intifada secured over $150,000 from Network for Good, a donor-advised fund that “has processed over $800 million in donations to more than 80,000 charities,” according to their website. Among the 80,000 charities that benefit from donor money through Network for Good is, for instance, Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (FIDF), an organization in clear disagreement with the mission of “education and elimination of discrimination” of Electronic Intifada. The Center for Security Policy, which Blumenthal cites as an inspiration to Anders Breivik, also receives funding from Network for Good. By their logic (guilt by association), Blumenthal and his editors are linked with the “war criminals” of FIDF and the alleged atrocities committed against Palestinians. In fact, Blumenthal and his dishonest intifada also share the “guilt” they attribute to the Islamophobes who fueled the wave of Breivik’s murders (Center for Security Policy). After all, MECCS, FIDF, and the Center for Security Policy all receive funds from Network for Good, right?
Lucky son of the Venezuelan elite: “Halvorssen is descendant of a Venezuelan oligarchic family closely tied to the political opposition formed against the recently deceased former president Hugo Chávez…”
Take a good look in the mirror, pal. While Thor’s OFF gathers more support and recognition from some of the most respected people and organizations in the world, who stands shoulder to shoulder with Blumenthal and his comrades? Hamas? I mean, is this idiot for real? I could cite the elegant commentary from Columbia Journalism Review on Blumenthal’s poor grasp of facts and lack of intellectual honesty, but I’d rather go with Hitchens: “reading Max Blumenthal is more like confronting a young skunk that hasn’t yet learned to spray.”
As for those who continue to cite Calvin Tucker, a proud extremist who disfigured people, don’t forget to quote the following from him next time:
Now j.scott bernard wants to fight me! This is clearly getting surreal. But when you’re ready, scott. When your ready. And yes, I would kick your butt. I grew up in a neighborhood in LONDON, mate, so I know how to take care of myself. The last guy who tried it with me ended up in the hospital in an ambulance and required reconstructive surgery on his face. And no, I’m not joking.
BUT… if you think you can intimidate me with threats, you’re messing with the wrong guy. If you’re game to fight, Mr. Loudmouth, let’s do this. But I warn you, I’m not joking.
My point is that the Caracazo and the political disenfranchisement of most Venezuelans was moral justification enough for the insurrection of 1992. In hindsight, that is, following Chávez’s electoral victory in 1998, I think we can also say it was a tactical success, although at the time it seemed a defeat. Without 1992, akin to Fidel’s Moncada failure, the final victory would have eluded the revolutionaries.
Conversely, I proclaim my support for the 1992 attempt to forcibly overthrow the corrupt government of Carlos Andrés Pérez, which had lost all pretension of democratic legitimacy when it massacred up to 3,000 civilians and secretly buried many of the bodies in mass graves.