+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Geopolitical Hotspots (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-20.html)
+--- Thread: Hell hath no fury like an imperialist scorned by Chavez (/thread-1006.html)
Hell hath no fury like an imperialist scorned by Chavez - Peter Lemkin - 05-03-2009
Hell hath no fury like an imperialist scorned
Hugo Chávez's greatest sin is that he has shown disrespect for the American Empire. Or as they would say in America's inner cities — He's dissed the Man. Such behavior of course cannot go unpunished lest it give other national leaders the wrong idea. Over the years, the United States has gotten along just fine with brutal dictators, mass murderers, torturers, and leaders who did nothing to relieve the poverty of their population — Augusto Pinochet, Pol Pot, the Greek Junta, Ferdinand Marcos, Suharto, Duvalier, Mobutu, the Brazil Junta, Somoza, Saddam Hussein, South African apartheid leaders, Portuguese fascists, etc., etc., terrible guys all, all seriously supported by Washington at one time or another; for none made it a regular habit, if ever, to diss the Man.
The latest evidence, we are told, that Hugo Chávez is a dictator and a threat to life as we know it is that he pushed for and got a constitutional amendment to remove term limits from the presidency. The American media and the opposition in Venezuela often make it sound as if Chávez is going to be guaranteed office for life, whereas he of course will have to be elected each time. Neither are we reminded that it's not unusual for a nation to not have a term limit for its highest office. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, if not all of Europe and much of the rest of the world, do not have such a limit. The United States did not have a term limit on the office of the president during the nation's first 162 years, until the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951. Were all American presidents prior to that time dictators?
In 2005, when Colombian President Alvaro Uribe succeeded in getting term limits lifted, the US mainstream media took scant notice. President Bush subsequently honored Uribe with the American Presidential Medal of Freedom. But in the period leading up to the February 15 referendum in Venezuela, the American media were competing with each other over who could paint Chávez and the Venezuelan constitutional process in the most critical and ominous terms. Typical was an op-ed in the Washington Post the day before the vote, which was headlined: "Closing in on Hugo Chávez". Its opening sentence read: "The beginning of the end is setting in for Hugo Chávez."12
For several years now, the campaign to malign Chávez has at times included issues of Israel and anti-Semitism. An isolated vandalism of a Caracas synagogue on January 30th of this year fed into this campaign. Synagogues are of course vandalized occasionally in the United States and many European countries, but no one ascribes this to a government policy driven by anti-semitism. With Chávez they do. In the American media, the lead up to the Venezuelan vote was never far removed from the alleged "Jewish" issue.
"Despite the government’s efforts to put the [synagogue] controversy to rest," the New York Times wrote a few days before the referendum vote, "a sense of dread still lingers among Venezuela’s 12,000 to 14,000 Jews."13
A day earlier, a Washington Post editorial was entitled: "Mr. Chávez vs. the Jews - With George W. Bush gone, Venezuela's strongman has found new enemies."14 Shortly before, a Post headline had informed us: "Jews in S. America Increasingly Uneasy - Government and Media Seen Fostering Anti-Semitism in Venezuela, Elsewhere"15
So commonplace has the Chávez-Jewish association become that a leading US progressive organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) in Washington, DC, recently distributed an article that reads more like the handiwork of a conservative group than a progressive one. I was prompted to write to them as follows:
Dear People,
I'm very sorry to say that I found your Venezuelan commentary by Larry Birns and David Rosenblum Felson to be remarkably lacking. The authors seem unable, or unwilling, to distinguish between being against Israeli policies from anti-semitism. It's kind of late in the day for them to not have comprehended the difference. They are forced to fall back on a State Department statement to make their case. Is that not enough said?
They condemn Chávez likening Israel’s occupation of Gaza to the Holocaust. But what if it's an apt comparison? They don't delve into this question at all.
They also condemn the use of the word "Zionism", saying that "in 9 times out of 10 involving the use of this word in fact smacks of anti-Semitism." Really? Can they give a precise explanation of how one distinguishes between an anti-Semitic use of the word and a non-anti-semitic use of it? That would be interesting.
The authors write that Venezuela's "anti-Israeli initiative ... revealingly transcends the intensity of almost every Arabic nation or normal adversary of Israel." Really. Since when are the totally gutless, dictator Arab nations the standard bearer for progressives? The ideal we should emulate. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan are almost never seriously and harshly critical of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. Therefore, Venezuela shouldn't be?
The authors state: "In a Christmas Eve address to the nation, Chávez charged that, 'Some minorities, descendants of the same ones who crucified Christ ... took all the world’s wealth for themselves'. Here, Chávez was not talking so much about Robin Hood, but rather unquestionably dipping into the lore of anti-Semitism." Well, here's the full quote: "The world has enough for all, but it turns out that some minorities, descendants of the same ones who crucified Christ, descendants of the same ones who threw Bolivar out of here and also crucified him in their own way at Santa Marta there in Colombia ..." Hmm, were the Jews so active in South America?
The ellipsis after the word "Christ" indicates that the authors consciously and purposely omitted the words that would have given the lie to their premise. Truly astonishing.
After Chávez won the term-limits referendum with about 55% of the vote, a State Department spokesperson stated: "For the most part this was a process that was fully consistent with democratic process." Various individuals and websites on the left have responded to this as an encouraging sign that the Obama administration is embarking on a new Venezuelan policy. At the risk of sounding like a knee-reflex cynic, I think this attitude is at best premature, at worst rather naive. It's easy for a State Department a level-or-so above the Bushies, i.e., semi-civilized, to make such a statement. A little more difficult would be accepting as normal and unthreatening Venezuela having good relations with countries like Cuba, Iran and Russia and not blocking Venezuela from the UN Security Council. Even more significant would be the United States ending its funding of groups in Venezuela determined to subvert and/or overthrow Chávez.
Washington Post, February 14, 2009, column by Edward Schumacher-Matos ↩
New York Times, February 13, 2009 ↩
Washington Post, February 12, 2009 ↩
Washington Post, February 8, 2009 ↩
From Blum's Anti-Empire Report http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer67.html
Hell hath no fury like an imperialist scorned by Chavez - David Guyatt - 05-03-2009
Speaking of bias - aka Jungian "projection" of western values elsewhere in the world while totally ignoring its own corrupt inhumanity, I have a bitch to make about the latest arrest warrant issued by the International Court against the Sudanese President, Omar Hassan al-Bashir for a "five year campaign of violence in Dafur" (see: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/03/04/sudan.president.darfur.charges/)
Quote:Bashir is charged with seven counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The warrant does not mention genocide, but the court may issue an amended warrant to include that charge later, ICC spokeswoman Laurence Blairon said.
I'm no friend of al-Bashir, but what the fuck are we doing here? Where's the balance? Is it just assumed that we in the west automatically hold the moral high ground; that our poo smells better than anyone else and that we don't, therefore, have to look at our own acts of war and crimes against humanity?
Go ahead and arrest al-Bashir, but while you're at it arrest former President george Bush on exactly the same charges. And Vice President Dick Cheney.
And when those two bastards are behind bars, then throw scent over the cloying pong of perpetual western injustice.
Hell hath no fury like an imperialist scorned by Chavez - Peter Lemkin - 05-03-2009
David Guyatt Wrote:Speaking of bias - aka Jungian "projection" of western values elsewhere in the world while totally ignoring its own corrupt inhumanity, I have a bitch to make about the latest arrest warrant issued by the International Court against the Sudanese President, Omar Hassan al-Bashir for a "five year campaign of violence in Dafur" (see: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/03/04/sudan.president.darfur.charges/)
Quote:Bashir is charged with seven counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The warrant does not mention genocide, but the court may issue an amended warrant to include that charge later, ICC spokeswoman Laurence Blairon said.
I'm no friend of al-Bashir, but what the fuck are we doing here? Where's the balance? Is it just assumed that we in the west automatically hold the moral high ground; that our poo smells better than anyone else and that we don't, therefore, have to look at our own acts of war and crimes against humanity?
Go ahead and arrest al-Bashir, but while you're at it arrest former President george Bush on exactly the same charges. And Vice President Dick Cheney.
And when those two bastards are behind bars, then throw scent over the cloying pong of perpetual western injustice.
Please don't forget Tony the Blair.:marchmellow:
Hell hath no fury like an imperialist scorned by Chavez - Mark Stapleton - 06-03-2009
Peter Lemkin Wrote:For several years now, the campaign to malign Chávez has at times included issues of Israel and anti-Semitism. An isolated vandalism of a Caracas synagogue on January 30th of this year fed into this campaign. Synagogues are of course vandalized occasionally in the United States and many European countries, but no one ascribes this to a government policy driven by anti-semitism. With Chávez they do. In the American media, the lead up to the Venezuelan vote was never far removed from the alleged "Jewish" issue.
"Despite the government’s efforts to put the [synagogue] controversy to rest," the New York Times wrote a few days before the referendum vote, "a sense of dread still lingers among Venezuela’s 12,000 to 14,000 Jews."13
Those responsible for that attack on the synagogue were rounded up within days.
http://sydwalker.info/blog/2009/02/19/the-excellent-karma-of-hugo-chavez/
The Zionist hate machine was reduced to shameful silence. Of course, not much was said of this in the MSM.
History will judge the west and its quisling leaders harshly over the Gaza genocide. Chavez and Bolivian leader Evo Morales were the only leaders with the balls to break off diplomatic ties with Israel. Brown, Sarkozy, Merkel, Harper, Rudd---none of these cowards are worth the little pinky of real leaders like Chavez and Morales.
Hell hath no fury like an imperialist scorned by Chavez - Peter Lemkin - 06-03-2009
Mark Stapleton Wrote:Peter Lemkin Wrote:For several years now, the campaign to malign Chávez has at times included issues of Israel and anti-Semitism. An isolated vandalism of a Caracas synagogue on January 30th of this year fed into this campaign. Synagogues are of course vandalized occasionally in the United States and many European countries, but no one ascribes this to a government policy driven by anti-semitism. With Chávez they do. In the American media, the lead up to the Venezuelan vote was never far removed from the alleged "Jewish" issue.
"Despite the government’s efforts to put the [synagogue] controversy to rest," the New York Times wrote a few days before the referendum vote, "a sense of dread still lingers among Venezuela’s 12,000 to 14,000 Jews."13
Those responsible for that attack on the synagogue were rounded up within days.
http://sydwalker.info/blog/2009/02/19/the-excellent-karma-of-hugo-chavez/
The Zionist hate machine was reduced to shameful silence. Of course, not much was said of this in the MSM.
History will judge the west and its quisling leaders harshly over the Gaza genocide. Chavez and Bolivian leader Evo Morales were the only leaders with the balls to break off diplomatic ties with Israel. Brown, Sarkozy, Merkel, Harper, Rudd---none of these cowards are worth the little pinky of real leaders like Chavez and Morales.
That really is the 'trick' isn't it - the MSM....I was thinking about how this hasn't changed much in hundred or thousands of years - only the technology. In the Middle Ages, for example, the average person got their 'news' and 'views' from someone who got their info from those in the Castle, came down to the village and read it from a scroll. Today they get it from the MSM 'scroll' from those in the 'Castle', still. 95++% Spin 5--% real info is the standard mix.
The Bushes, Blairs, et al. are just the modern versions of the knights, cardinals, and sychophants who served those in the Castle. Nothing much has changed but the stage set.
Chavez, Morales, Castro before them were/are thorns in the side of those in the Castle - not reading from the hymn sheet [or is that shit] and actually trying to do something for the People. None of them are perfect, but nearly angels compared to those who bad-mouth them in the 'Castle' for being modern day 'Robin Hoods'.
Hell hath no fury like an imperialist scorned by Chavez - David Guyatt - 06-03-2009
I think we can collectively think of something far worse for Blair, Peter. How about stripping him of access to the media and place a restraining order on that lying grin of his.
Hell hath no fury like an imperialist scorned by Chavez - Peter Lemkin - 06-03-2009
David Guyatt Wrote:I think we can collectively think of something far worse for Blair, Peter. How about stripping him of access to the media and place a restraining order on that lying grin of his.
Ah, you must admit, he does have a boyish and photogenic 'choirboy' smile/grin and can lie with a very straight face and righteous bravado in his voice. He should have been an actor - oh, forgot, he is...for the Power Elite. I think a nice stay in some prison would suit him just fine for War Crimes and Lies, cavorting with terrorists like Bush/Chaney, Misappropiated funds, Treason and a few other things....:burnout: :heeeelllllooooo: