Enrique Leave to you to compare others to President Chavez and while I am against the interventions of the US and other imperialists say against the countries of say Libya, Iran and Syria as such , Assad and Qaddafi are dictators and don't come up to Chavez's bootstraps and should not be used in the same sentence.
Your type of anti-anti imperialism reminds of the Stalinist kind of the Hitler-Stalin Pact era where we had all these CP'ers rejoicing at this anti imperialist front and saying what such a great anti imperialist Hitler was and you and other so called Leftist's would had criticized Lenin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg and others for not supporting the Czar against the German imperialism in World War 1 using that logic. As Rosa once said to paraphrase "Workers of the World except in war, then slit each others throats" when she made her criticism of the German SPD and other social democrats in supporting their countries imperialist wars. Cort On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Enrique Ferro <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > > > *INDEED THE WESTERN MSM ARE VERY VICIOUS AGAINST THOSE LEADERS WHO > ATTEMPT TO BREAK** LOOSE FROM THE EMPIRE. WHY JOIN THEM TO DEMONIZE > THEM, CORT AND OTHERS? WHY NOT JOIN CHÁVEZ TO STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH > THEIR AGGRESSED COUNTRIES?* > > *However, that which is dead cannot die, and Chávez escaped the dungeon > dimension he was cast into to come to power in 1998. While not going so far > as to actually do anything remotely dictatorial, Chávez was far from a > democratic leader. Ins**tead of competing honestly in elections, he > provided services and raised the standard of living for the people of > Venezuela, ensuring their gratitude and thereby gaining an unfair advantage > at the polls. Much of the funds for this insidious election tactic of > making things better were rerouted from the newly nationalised oilfields: > through this wanton kleptocracy, billions of petrodollars were withheld > from deserving rich white people. Under his rule, the murder rate soared; a > tend analysts have linked to his predilection for riding round Caracas > slums at night and picking off pedestrians with a hunting rifle. > * > Every Hugo Chávez obituary in the Western press by Sam Kriss > > Darth Hugo Destruktor Chávez, the outspoken and inflammatory Venezuelan > leader, died yesterday in Caracas when the Invisible Hand of the free > market reached down his throat and shook loose his gall bladder. He is > survived by his four children and his millions-strong army of terrifying > cyborg drones. > > To his supporters and those implanted with his mind-controlling > Chavismo-chips, Chávez was Emmanuel, the reborn Christ. To his detractors, > he was Double Hitler. As ever, the truth is somewhere in the middle while > he was certainly born, he was not Christ; and while there was only one of > him, he was most definitely Hitler. > > Hugo Chávez exploded onto the world stage in September of 2005, when he > took the stand at the United Nations General Assembly to complain at length > about the air conditioning. However, he first came to prominence in the > hitherto-unknown land of Venezuela in 1992. In that year, he and a band of > avaricious raiders attempted to steal the Seers Eye, an enormous sapphire > kept in the vaults of the Federal Legislative Palace. Thankfully, his plot > was foiled, and the stone was destroyed before it could be used as a > component in Chávezs Ionising Doom Cannon, a laser weapon that would have > been capable of extinguishing the Sun. > > However, that which is dead cannot die, and Chávez escaped the dungeon > dimension he was cast into to come to power in 1998. While not going so far > as to actually do anything remotely dictatorial, Chávez was far from a > democratic leader. Instead of competing honestly in elections, he provided > services and raised the standard of living for the people of Venezuela, > ensuring their gratitude and thereby gaining an unfair advantage at the > polls. Much of the funds for this insidious election tactic of making > things better were rerouted from the newly nationalised oilfields: through > this wanton kleptocracy, billions of petrodollars were withheld from > deserving rich white people. Under his rule, the murder rate soared; a tend > analysts have linked to his predilection for riding round Caracas slums at > night and picking off pedestrians with a hunting rifle. > > Absolutely nothing happened in April of 2002. > > On the international stage, too, Chávez made some severe missteps. From > his innumerable lazy Sunday morning lie-ins with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, in > which he and the tie-hating weirdo spent hours curled up together on the > sofa watching reruns of *Friends*, to his decision to travel back in time > to 1939 and sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on behalf of both nations, > Chávez maintained a policy of automatic support for tyrants, dictators, > traffic wardens, accordion players, queue-jumpers, and other evildoers. > > For all the vaguely defined suffering that Ill assume hes caused, > Chávezs death opens up new opportunities for Latin America. Freed from his > yoke, leaders across the continent are now free to abandon his schemes for > mutual assistance and non-usurious development lending. Only a broad > network of grassroots citizen activists stands between the Venezuelan > people and the rapprochement with financial imperialism that they > definitely want, even if they dont know it yet. > > *Ive always thought that a good way to test the sincerity of anyone who > claims to be on the Left is to find out their attitude to Hugo Chávez. > Those who try to disavow him tend to be, in general, useless: they want a > pure, ideal socialism, not socialism as a real material movement. Chávez > wasnt perfect. In some areas he went too far; in many he didnt go nearly > far enough. Nonetheless the immense good his Bolivarian Revolution has done > for the people of Venezuela and for people across Latin America and the > world is undeniable. What must be remembered, though, is that Hugo Chávez > didnt do any of this alone. His achievements were those of every doctor, > teacher, worker, farmer and organiser who worked to improve the lives of > those around them. The social movements he helped build and connect will > long survive him. Descanse en paz. La lucha sigue.* > > * > http://samkriss.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/every-hugo-chavez-obiturary-in-the-western-press/ > * > The BBC's 'Bogeyman' Narrative on Hugo Chavez > > The Editors <http://www.newsunspun.org/author/the-editors>, 7 March 2013 > | *4 > Comments*<http://www.newsunspun.org/article/the-bbcs-bogeyman-narrative-on-hugo-chavez#comments> > > Categories: Venezuela <http://www.newsunspun.org/category/venezuela> | Latin > America <http://www.newsunspun.org/category/latin-america> | BBC News > <http://www.newsunspun.org/category/bbc-news> | > > > > [image: submit to reddit] <http://www.reddit.com/submit> > > [image: Highslide > JS]<http://www.newsunspun.org/images/articles/1010-31/1010-31-bbc-bogeymen.jpg> > *Click to enlarge* > > The BBC maintained a strong a record of misleading > reporting<http://www.newsunspun.org/blogpost/the-editors/13-years-of-bbc-reporting-on-venezuelas-hugo-chavez>throughout > the presidency of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who died on > Tuesday, following a two year battle with cancer. Yet today's article by > Jon Kelly, 'Hugo Chavez and the era of anti-American > bogeymen<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20977849>', > takes a particularly spiteful slant on the issue of what is presented as > 'Anti-Americanism' in Chavez's stance toward US foreign policy. > > The premise of Kelly's analysis is that Hugo Chavez is simply the latest > in a long list of 'bogeymen', identified by 'anti-American' sentiment. To > illustrate the ideological company that Kelly suggests Chavez kept, his > image appears on the same panel as murderous despots and terrorists such as > Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi and Osama bin Laden. This may have been > normal practice for news organisations such as Fox News, but for the BBC it > must be noted that this is a move particularly devoid of integrity, perhaps > a new low. > > [image: Highslide > JS]<http://www.newsunspun.org/images/articles/1010-31/1010-31-hero-and-villain.jpg> > *Click to enlarge* > > Kelly writes that Chavez was by turns portrayed as a six-times elected > champion of the people or a constitution-fiddling demagogue, implying that > the polarisation of commentary concerning Chavezs presidency makes it > difficult to perceive where the truth lies. Perhaps if Kelly had indulged > in the journalistic habit of presenting the bare facts, it might help to > dispel such confusion. It is factually accurate to acknowledge that Hugo > Chavez was democratically elected six times, also that his base of support > was amongst the poor, the vast majority of Venezuelans. The ambiguous claim > of constitution-fiddling is in line with the speculative approach the BBC > has consistently leaned towards in reporting on Venezuelan politics, > relying on the hyperbole of the opposition, yet lacking in facts (in a > similar vein, the link to the BBC video on Hugo Chavez's life on the BBC > website has been updated and is now titled 'Life of people's hero and > villain'). > > In discussing US-Venezuelan relations, Kelly does not mention probably the > most seminal event of the last fourteen years: the US-backed coup in 2002. > As an interesting aside, straight after the death of Hugo Chavez, in the > BBC 'look back' at his life, the coup was also omitted by James > Robbins<http://www.newsunspun.org/eotn/bbc-misinforms-about-venezuelas-2002-opposition-coup>, > who instead described events as 'a general strike' when 'Chavez was briefly > pushed from office'. > > Kelly creates a spectrum of bogeymen with anti-American tendencies: > socialism to secular Arab nationalism to Islamic fundamentalism. The > article ties together the homogenously applied label 'anti-American' and > the term 'bogeymen' to somehow equate the two: if you don't like the > behaviour of the US this mode of reasoning renders you no less than a > bogeyman, an object of fear and a threat. Kelly comments that where Hugo > Chavez belonged on this spectrum was hotly debated. He presents as > indisputable the claim that Chavez should be viewed as a bogeyman; it is > only where he sits in relation to other bogeymen that is up for debate. > > The article notes that Chavez floridly lambasted imperial American > policies, the word 'imperial' placed in double quotes, and the notion that > the most powerful country in the world with 900 military bases in 130 > countries might have imperialist tendencies portrayed as ludicrous. In > fact, the BBC never refer to US imperialism without quotation marks; > imperialism is a word for history books it seems, today's western > militaries simply invade countries for the greater good. Those who think > the US is an imperial power are simply anti-American goes the gist of > this article. > > *Anti-American* > > The term anti-American is one applied to negate critical positions on the > policies of the US. Noam Chomsky has commented on the > term<http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1994----02.htm>anti-American that > it is an interesting expression, because the > accusation of being anti-nation is used typically in totalitarian > societies, for example, the former Soviet Union accused dissidents of being > anti-Soviet. But try "anti-Italian" or "anti-Belgian," people in Milan or > Brussels would laugh. > > By this tendency to apply one label to a range of political viewpoints, > Hugo Chavez joins the ranks of the 'most prominent critics' of US power > have recently 'exited the spotlight'. The implication here is clear: Osama > bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Kim Jong-il have been > prominent critics of the US, and if anyone happens to disagree with the US, > they are in the same boat. All who do not agree with the United States, > including disagreement with any and all elements of US foreign policy, are > designated to one ideological grouping. Naomi Klein discusses how this > approach was taken by critics of anti-corporate protesters following > September 11, 2001, who attempt to make ideological links between > anti-corporate protesters and religious fundamentalists like bin Laden, as > British secretary of State for international development Clare Short did in > November 2001. Since September 11, we havent heard from the protesters, > she observed. Im sure they are reflecting on what their demands were > because their demands turned out to be very similar to those of Bin Ladens > network. > > The attempt to place a range of political positions in one or another camp > (us or theirs) works to deter dissent. To engage in dissent in this > climate [following September 11] was unpatriotic, as Klein writes. The > new battle lines have been drawn, crude as they are: to criticize the U.S. > government is to be on the side of the terrorists, to stand in the way of > market-driven globalization is to further the terrorists evil goals. > > This is precisely the position propagated by the Bush administration at > the launch of the war on terror, the binarism that Bush proposes, as > Judith Butler described, in which only two positions are possible > Either youre with us or youre with the terrorists. Liberally applying > the label anti-American bogeyman on the basis of a divergence of position > with US policy, as Kelly does, is consistent with this position of binarism. > > The BBC claims to take an impartial stance on international issues, yet > this article propagates a worldview in black and white terms. In this > presentation of political positions as a choice between only two options, > that of the US and the political ideology of free market are presented or > that of the despotic and terroristic bogeyman. > > It is important that the events which have taken place in Venezuela, and > throughout Latin America, over the past decade, the development of > peaceful, democratic alternatives to the policies of neoliberalism, are not > airbrushed from the historical record. The standards of living have > improved for millions of people following a process that has had popular, > democratic support, yet the international perception of the changes in > Venezuela are at risk of being written off as simply the actions of another > 'anti-American' 'bogeyman' due to the media's relentless negative treatment > of the Venezuelan government. > > > ** > > > The BBC's 'Bogeyman' Narrative on Hugo Chavez > > The Editors <http://www.newsunspun.org/author/the-editors>, 7 March 2013 > | *4 > Comments*<http://www.newsunspun.org/article/the-bbcs-bogeyman-narrative-on-hugo-chavez#comments> > > Categories: Venezuela <http://www.newsunspun.org/category/venezuela> | Latin > America <http://www.newsunspun.org/category/latin-america> | BBC News > <http://www.newsunspun.org/category/bbc-news> | > > > > [image: submit to reddit] <http://www.reddit.com/submit> > > [image: Highslide > JS]<http://www.newsunspun.org/images/articles/1010-31/1010-31-bbc-bogeymen.jpg> > *Click to enlarge* > > The BBC maintained a strong a record of misleading > reporting<http://www.newsunspun.org/blogpost/the-editors/13-years-of-bbc-reporting-on-venezuelas-hugo-chavez>throughout > the presidency of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who died on > Tuesday, following a two year battle with cancer. Yet today's article by > Jon Kelly, 'Hugo Chavez and the era of anti-American > bogeymen<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20977849>', > takes a particularly spiteful slant on the issue of what is presented as > 'Anti-Americanism' in Chavez's stance toward US foreign policy. > > The premise of Kelly's analysis is that Hugo Chavez is simply the latest > in a long list of 'bogeymen', identified by 'anti-American' sentiment. To > illustrate the ideological company that Kelly suggests Chavez kept, his > image appears on the same panel as murderous despots and terrorists such as > Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi and Osama bin Laden. This may have been > normal practice for news organisations such as Fox News, but for the BBC it > must be noted that this is a move particularly devoid of integrity, perhaps > a new low. > > [image: Highslide > JS]<http://www.newsunspun.org/images/articles/1010-31/1010-31-hero-and-villain.jpg> > *Click to enlarge* > > Kelly writes that Chavez was by turns portrayed as a six-times elected > champion of the people or a constitution-fiddling demagogue, implying that > the polarisation of commentary concerning Chavezs presidency makes it > difficult to perceive where the truth lies. Perhaps if Kelly had indulged > in the journalistic habit of presenting the bare facts, it might help to > dispel such confusion. It is factually accurate to acknowledge that Hugo > Chavez was democratically elected six times, also that his base of support > was amongst the poor, the vast majority of Venezuelans. The ambiguous claim > of constitution-fiddling is in line with the speculative approach the BBC > has consistently leaned towards in reporting on Venezuelan politics, > relying on the hyperbole of the opposition, yet lacking in facts (in a > similar vein, the link to the BBC video on Hugo Chavez's life on the BBC > website has been updated and is now titled 'Life of people's hero and > villain'). > > In discussing US-Venezuelan relations, Kelly does not mention probably the > most seminal event of the last fourteen years: the US-backed coup in 2002. > As an interesting aside, straight after the death of Hugo Chavez, in the > BBC 'look back' at his life, the coup was also omitted by James > Robbins<http://www.newsunspun.org/eotn/bbc-misinforms-about-venezuelas-2002-opposition-coup>, > who instead described events as 'a general strike' when 'Chavez was briefly > pushed from office'. > > Kelly creates a spectrum of bogeymen with anti-American tendencies: > socialism to secular Arab nationalism to Islamic fundamentalism. The > article ties together the homogenously applied label 'anti-American' and > the term 'bogeymen' to somehow equate the two: if you don't like the > behaviour of the US this mode of reasoning renders you no less than a > bogeyman, an object of fear and a threat. Kelly comments that where Hugo > Chavez belonged on this spectrum was hotly debated. He presents as > indisputable the claim that Chavez should be viewed as a bogeyman; it is > only where he sits in relation to other bogeymen that is up for debate. > > The article notes that Chavez floridly lambasted imperial American > policies, the word 'imperial' placed in double quotes, and the notion that > the most powerful country in the world with 900 military bases in 130 > countries might have imperialist tendencies portrayed as ludicrous. In > fact, the BBC never refer to US imperialism without quotation marks; > imperialism is a word for history books it seems, today's western > militaries simply invade countries for the greater good. Those who think > the US is an imperial power are simply anti-American goes the gist of > this article. > > *Anti-American* > > The term anti-American is one applied to negate critical positions on the > policies of the US. Noam Chomsky has commented on the > term<http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1994----02.htm>anti-American that > it is an interesting expression, because the > accusation of being anti-nation is used typically in totalitarian > societies, for example, the former Soviet Union accused dissidents of being > anti-Soviet. But try "anti-Italian" or "anti-Belgian," people in Milan or > Brussels would laugh. > > By this tendency to apply one label to a range of political viewpoints, > Hugo Chavez joins the ranks of the 'most prominent critics' of US power > have recently 'exited the spotlight'. The implication here is clear: Osama > bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Kim Jong-il have been > prominent critics of the US, and if anyone happens to disagree with the US, > they are in the same boat. All who do not agree with the United States, > including disagreement with any and all elements of US foreign policy, are > designated to one ideological grouping. Naomi Klein discusses how this > approach was taken by critics of anti-corporate protesters following > September 11, 2001, who attempt to make ideological links between > anti-corporate protesters and religious fundamentalists like bin Laden, as > British secretary of State for international development Clare Short did in > November 2001. Since September 11, we havent heard from the protesters, > she observed. Im sure they are reflecting on what their demands were > because their demands turned out to be very similar to those of Bin Ladens > network. > > The attempt to place a range of political positions in one or another camp > (us or theirs) works to deter dissent. To engage in dissent in this > climate [following September 11] was unpatriotic, as Klein writes. The > new battle lines have been drawn, crude as they are: to criticize the U.S. > government is to be on the side of the terrorists, to stand in the way of > market-driven globalization is to further the terrorists evil goals. > > This is precisely the position propagated by the Bush administration at > the launch of the war on terror, the binarism that Bush proposes, as > Judith Butler described, in which only two positions are possible > Either youre with us or youre with the terrorists. Liberally applying > the label anti-American bogeyman on the basis of a divergence of position > with US policy, as Kelly does, is consistent with this position of binarism. > > The BBC claims to take an impartial stance on international issues, yet > this article propagates a worldview in black and white terms. In this > presentation of political positions as a choice between only two options, > that of the US and the political ideology of free market are presented or > that of the despotic and terroristic bogeyman. > > It is important that the events which have taken place in Venezuela, and > throughout Latin America, over the past decade, the development of > peaceful, democratic alternatives to the policies of neoliberalism, are not > airbrushed from the historical record. The standards of living have > improved for millions of people following a process that has had popular, > democratic support, yet the international perception of the changes in > Venezuela are at risk of being written off as simply the actions of another > 'anti-American' 'bogeyman' due to the media's relentless negative treatment > of the Venezuelan government. > > On 10 March 2013 11:41, Cort Greene <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> I have not watched SNL for years and certainly will never again with this >> kind of trash,lies and p*ropaganda attacking President Chavez in its >> opening to last night show and what the hell is Justin Timberlake doing >> (what a PUKE!). Most of the stuff in the so called spoof was wrong.* >> * >> * >> *Even dead they try to smear him. >> * >> * >> * >> *Cort >> * >> >> poor translation from >> >> http://www.ultimasnoticias.com.ve/noticias/chevere/espectaculos/video---parodia-de-snl-despierta-polemica-en-twitt.aspx >> >> Video | SNL Spoof Twitter arouses controversy >> Twitter users flooded the social network messages in both rejection and >> defense of the music video. >> >> >> 0 (0 vote (s)) >> >> [image: cantidad_comentarios] 541 reading (s) >> >> >> [image: Video | SNL Spoof Twitter arouses controversy] >> The clip sparked controversy (Credits: A) >> *A* . - The U.S. show *Saturday Night Live* aired Saturday night its >> regular program in which a space dedicated to the *death of President >> Chavez.* >> >> participates in the clip the singer *Justin Timberlake, impersonating >> Elton Jonh* and dedicating a song to phrases most *controversial of >> President Chavez* . *twitterers flooded the social network messages in >> both rejection and defense of the music video* . >> >> ** >> >> *Trina Ballesteros * @ *LaBallesteros*<https://twitter.com/LaBallesteros> >> >> A *Justin Timberlake* allow you entry to Venezuela in 3, 2, 1 ... ** >> >> *MissSandalia * @ *MissSandalia* <https://twitter.com/MissSandalia> >> >> Shame *Justin Timberlake* mocked Chavez, Chavez but not the song says xq >> reality ** >> >> *Erika Ortega Sanoja * @ *ErikaOSanoja*<https://twitter.com/ErikaOSanoja> >> >> First, Argo and Ben Affleck on Iran. Today, SNL and *Justin Timberlake* >> against >> Vzla. Poor gringos, are the world's most fucked up people. ** >> >> *Vicente Albarracín * @ *vic_albarracin*<https://twitter.com/vic_albarracin> >> >> *Justin Timberlake* parody of Elton John's funeral Chavez on SNL >> tonight on USA. >> >> *Javier Pasamar * @ *javodsgn* <https://twitter.com/javodsgn> >> >> What balls *Justin Timberlake* doing a skit on SNL about Chavez. Crack >> eternal https://www. <https://t.co/hwxBODIGPl>youtube.com / watch? >> feature = <https://t.co/hwxBODIGPl>player_embedded & v = VoHQw6VFOzI >> <https://t.co/hwxBODIGPl> >> ... <https://t.co/hwxBODIGPl> <3 # >> <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23manlytears&src=hash> >> *manlytears* <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23manlytears&src=hash> ** >> <https://t.co/hwxBODIGPl> >> ** <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23manlytears&src=hash> >> >> * >> * <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23manlytears&src=hash> >> >> ** <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23manlytears&src=hash> >> *rufi warrior @ rufian <https://twitter.com/rufian>* >> >> *Well dude, Justin Timberlake made a tribute-parody on SNL Chavez. Then >> say it is not our rockstar * >> * >> * >> >> >> * Video: >> * >> *http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VoHQw6VFOzI* >> >> >> www.ultimasnoticias.com.ve >> >> > > > -- > They have succeeded in dominating us more > through ignorance, than through force. > *Simon Bolivar* > > "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit > atrocities." *Voltaire* > > "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the > oppressed" -* Steve Biko* > > > -- *A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified. (Also quoted as "The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.") Leon Trotsky Their Morals and Ours (1938)* [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
