How many more times do we have to say, have to write that the chavista regime is a fascist one, that it is anti religious, antisemitic, anti basic human rights? How long much do we have to tolerate those who do not tolerate us?
Last week the images of the "Divina Pastora" were shot at in diffrrent areas of Barquisimeto, followed by other symbols of the Catholic church. We start this week with a group of "organized homeless" trying to take over a Caracas synagogue. This was not an empty building in search of usage: churches also are empty on week days.
These people know exactly what they are doing even if they might not know what a synagogue really is. But they have heard the anti Jewish talk of the regime, the anti Catholic verborea of Chavez, the unacceptable recomedation of the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" on the Venezuelan national state radio no less.
What does it take to make people understand, in particular the still existing Chavez apologists, that when you let religious symbols being profanated as if nothing, then you are likely the next one in turn for profanation?
And do not come with the excuse that it might be people from the opposition that might have shot the Divina Pastora: if they did so it was because they knew it could be blamed on chavismo per Chavez disgraceful discourse.
And yours truly, the writer of this note, is a complete agnostic, for the record. Yet he knows very well that agnostics also end up in concentration camps, as needed, behind the Jews, next to the Christians, left of the Muslims, ahead of the Atheist, a few steps away from the Buddhists.
Monday, May 30, 2011
22 comments:
Comments policy:
1) Comments are moderated after the sixth day of publication. It may take up to a day or two for your note to appear then.
2) Your post will appear if you follow the basic polite rules of discourse. I will be ruthless in erasing, as well as those who replied to any off rule comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
the catholic church and world governments profanated and profane humans and basic rights with their absurd religions, governments, and poverty !
ReplyDeletetheir emblems and idols are symbols of histories atrocities and stupidity and dumbness !
they deserve no respect !
as they essentially disrecpect all of us !
george.
jotqom@yahoo.com
wow, the great purple hippo has spoken :) ( George the 'anonymous')
ReplyDeleteGeorge says:"they deserve no respect !
as they essentially disrespect all of us"
For your information, George, religions cannot disrespect you or anyone else.Only people can do that.So if you have no respect for religious people then you are the one doing a great deal of the disrespecting.Where is your logic?
To anonymous George (of the jungle, as it seems): symbols are just symbols, they have no other meaning than the arbitrary one assigned to them by each observer. The swastika itself was a perfectly harmless symbol of good luck and power until it was appropriated by the Nazis. Now it has become the ultimate symbol of evil.
ReplyDeleteLikewise the term "bolivariano" has different meanings depending on whom you ask. For everyone with an IQ over 100, it means "retarded piece of useless shit who pretends he can run a country even though he lacks the intellectual skills to add single-digit numbers even with the help of a calculator."
But, of course, destroying symbols, regardless of how much "evil" you might think they represent, is the most cowardly passive-aggressive behavior known to man. It means that you're incapable of dealing with the "evil" directly, so you pick on a harmless, defenseless symbol so you can feel all tough and macho while beating it up and pretending it's the real thing.
You clearly are the kind of "man" that, when confronted of evil and injustice, will quickly run home to burn an US flag, mostly because you know from experience that if you ever tried to fight against anything more solid than a piece of cloth, you'll invariably get beat up to a bloody pulp.
Daniel, and most of us have the same problem: we are somewhat educated. That's the main reason why we are continuously appalled by the "public's" responses or behaviors to Indio Chavez's actions or dogma, specifically devised for the uneducated pueblo of ours.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, you will sleep better if you keep remind yourself of that, that's what I do when I get exceedingly frustrated: el pueblo no sabe.. no tiene EDUCACION. No entiende. Et comment penses tu qu'ils vont comprendre des themes religieux, historiques, plutot compliques?
Indio es Indio hasta que alguien lo EDUQUE.
Carlos I.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteBecause you have often used the term "Fascist" to describe Chavismo, your post made me curious about the exact definition, leading me to look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
(reading of above for those not well versed in the subject, like I was, is recommended)
It appears that there isn't much unanimity regarding the definition. In fact, even the scholars have such a hard time defining the word, that most of them have resorted to listing general properties of fascist ideology in lieu of providing a definition. In all of the various lists, I find that Chavismo falls clearly within 70-80 percent of the properties listed, and partially within another 10 percent.
So, using "looks, walks, quacks like a duck" logic, I guess I am going to jump on-board and agree with you, in so far as Venezuelan Fascism appears to have as much in common with each of the past forms of Fascism as each of them had with each other.
One of the deciding points against Allende in 1973 was his proposal in March that all education in Chile follow the "East German model," [talk about an oxymoron..] which would have done away with Church control of the parochial schools. After loud protest, Allende withdrew the proposal, "por ahora." But the damage had been done, as Allende had shown his hand. There could now be no mistaking the path Allende wanted to take.
ReplyDeleteIn 1955, Juan Domingo Perón went against the church. Not long after, he fled Argentina for Paraguay.
Lesson: it does not behoove leaders in Latin America to go against the Roman Catholic Church, no matter how much support they believe they have. OTOH, we have the Mexican model, where the PRI ruled for 70 years with an anticlerical approach.
George
ReplyDeleteYou are an idiot. Not because of your positions, but because you cannot even read properly enough to understand the point of a text.
Roy,
ReplyDeleteA while ago I did the same you just did and also realized that the term 'fascist' is problematic. There is one more problem: Given these lists of characteristics, one can easily associate a large fraction of them to many people/governments that are not considered fascists.
I never use the term because it means nothing. It is just a word to vilify someone. When an author uses it, he/she looses a bit of credibility in my opinion.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this post.
Carlos,
You are the same Carlos who complained in Devil Excrement about how resources could fall on social programs and Chavistas and that was the worst thing that could happen and that petrol subsidies are best for you, who give so much?
You permanent use the term "Indio" to insult people. Oh, no, it is the other meaning of indio, you know, how we use it in Venzuela.
Venezuela my foot.
What are you? I reckon your parents came from Europe? Thanks God the majority of Venezuelans, whether with immediate European background or not, do not think like you. Your attitude is utterly racist and silly. Education, by the way, has very little to do with this intolerance.
You probably learnt your history from some Franquista priest.
People like you helped Chavez to come to power and keep helping him and you will never get it.
Geez.
Meursault
ReplyDeleteFascist is a very meaningful term that should be employed as often as possible when dealing with regimes like Chavez (fascism light, por ahora?) or Iran (theocratic fascism?).
For me the very basic difference between fascism and communism is that fascism is a purposeful division maker. Communism is not in its earlier stages, too busy to do the good revolution, wanting all on board, and realizing on the run that it needs constant enemies to justify its rule. Fascism starts right there, at the Us versus Them. Fascism never has the intention to be one unified nation, but a militant one, while communism actually wants no nation if possible.
There is also yet another factor that differentiates fascism from communism and that is that fascism very early, if not form the start, relies on economic power of the state to achieve its aims. In communism private property must abolished first and then eventually concerns are structured. Fascism has no problem keeping alive economic concerns willing to collaborate and pay off the high ranks. And fascism is prompt in creating new ones out of the old ones as needed.
Of course, in the end fascism and communism end in naked totalitarianism and as such look on occasion disturbingly the same but that is no excuse not to differentiate the two systems. That is why for the last couple of years I have started increasingly describing chavismo as fascism with clear neo-totalitarian pulsations. As such I consider your position of stating that fascism is now an empty term that should be avoided to be a mark of intellectual laziness associated to undigested political correctness. Circumstances change with time and fascist expressions in the XXI century second decade cannot be the same as in the XX century second decade. But the basic impulse is the same and must be described adequately.
Hi Daniel,
ReplyDeleteQuoting:
"For me the very basic difference between fascism and communism"
The key words are "For me". My point is that it seems everyone has their own version of fascism that they apply to the people they don't like: chavistas use it for the opposition and opposition for chavistas.
In any case, I would not use this term but agree with you in what you mean.
p.s.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
although this one has it from the first line... :-)
Kepler,
ReplyDelete1. I've never read "the Devil's excrement" so you got me mixed up. I'd suggest you fine-tune your reading skills before you dart misplaced accusations.
2. If you have a problem with the word "Indio", it ain't my fault. I happen to love indigenous, simple people. It's not necessarily a derogatory connotation. Depends on the Context. I admire true natural "Indios", feel sorry for "Neo-Bolivarian Urban Indios", if you prefer, who think they know anything or have any sort of education. And the despicable Cacique of such ignorant, yet presumptuous tribe is none other than Thugo Chabruto.
Carlos I.
"It's not necessarily"
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily? The word Indian in one meaning is completely unrelated to the word Indian in the second meaning, right? Indian in the Amerindian or India-from meanings came from the Latin word "India"
and Indian as a derogatory term, very often used by people who also use "mono", comes from Hungarian "indíacarloszó", which has nothing to do with native Americans and the attitude particularly felt by the Spaniards, one the most backward nations in Western Europe (and from where part of my ancestors also came).
And yeah, the word cacique doesn't have to do with the native Americans, it is again one of those words that may look the same but have a completely different etymology.
This is not too much PR: your racism is so engrained you don't realise it. How many times a week do you say "esos monos son flojos"?
Do you think the "more complex" society of Spaniards/British/Germans/French were simply more insightful into anything?
I suggest just as start, this
As for education: that did not prevent one of the technologically more advanced nations in Europe to carry out bestialities that go beyond anything Chavismo could do. And a lot of very "educated" blokes were into it.
You really won't get it.
Racism and classicism is so deeply engrained in your mindset, you don't see it...joder.
Kepler, I don't waste much time with people like you who like to throw accusations like "racist" around so lightly. You don't even know me.. In your case, I'd venture to guess your problem is too much self-righteous pseudo-education, instead of a certain lack thereof. Never been a big fan of extremes..
ReplyDeleteNo seas tan Indio, respect your fellow bloggers and lighten up, dude.
Carlos I.
And AGAIN, Kepler, get your s#it straight before you accuse virtual bloggers: You got me mixed up with someone else on some other blog. I hardly post here every other month, and never wrote crap like 'esos monos son flojos'. Take your medicine, and relax.
ReplyDeleteCapicce?
Carlos I.
Mr. Meursault,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, in so far as the term "Fascism" is poorly defined and widely misused as a pejorative without real meaning.
However, in this case, the similarities of the underlying causes, that allowed populist totalitarian regimes to take hold, in Italy, Germany, Spain, and now Venezuela, have much in common and the resulting character of all of those regimes as well. I suppose that Populist Totalitarianism might also serve as a descriptive label, but that name doesn't convey the underlying corruptness that the word "Fascism" brings.
When one's aim is to change minds, it is necessary to bring to bear all of the emotional firepower one has in one's arsenal.
Someone insulting people by calling them "Indios" and saying he is not a racist.
ReplyDeleteGeez...same as Chavistas.
I leave at that, "educado".
They can call themselves whatever they want and we can call them whatever we want but, the fact is: Governments that encourage and condone anti-religious acts are are committing Human Rights Violations. If they had checked their little blue book (1999 constitution) they would have found the part about freedom of religion! Which unlike the Arabs, that cling to their Islamic law, puts them at odds with the UN and the OAS.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Perhaps, the PDVSA sanctions are not enough? More likely their just testing the waters again to see what they can get away with. Strange, for we find Cuba being far more careful about such things these days. (Not that they don't do it)
The words Indio and Indian as used to refer to natives of the New World come from the Latin root indigen. Even 500 years ago people knew the difference between the Indus subcontinent and the Americas.
ReplyDeleteIt's also likely that the word america came from a mejica or a mexico, not some rather obscure Italian explorer's unusual first name.
Mr Meursault- Yup, Godwin's law; I was thinking the same thing.
I've read the Protocols; time well spent. Wonder if those criticizing that writing here have read the material or not? I'm guessing not, because anyone who has read them knows how well they fit the observed course of events in the twentieth century; the only real question is who wrote them and who implemented them, not their validity as an historical blueprint.
Most likely some fascists wrote them.
You cannot get tired. As I tell my son, as many have done. Finish what you started. You must post until things change. You are a voice, a hope for many. Nothing Less.
ReplyDeleteWhen we are young our parents are like GODS.If we are fearful of their punishment, or they are overly strict we might not develop enough inner security or confidence in our own opinions over the years and continue to view authority as more powerful and GOD like than it actually is.Instead of becoming strong, we will continue to depend psychologically on God like authorities or its replacement:a set of dogmatic ideas.
ReplyDeleteThis is common in a large percentage of the population all over the world but in some cultures more than others.Often these types are the ones who in someway feel disenfranchised or dis-empowered.They are like children in awe of a huge and powerful world-Only not in the good sense.These same people who are unable to acknowledge their own power and personal responsibility, will tend to blame others who they see as more powerful and to some extent GOD like.( kind of like a religion:)
Feeling like they cannot control their world, and blaming others, can lead to paranoid conspiracy theories...which is the fundamental idea behind fascism.Paranoia worsens as we feel less and less control of our world.
Bear in mind that fascism is inherently conspiratorial so here we enter the realm of the invincible god-king with legions of invisible, blindly loyal demons.
Conspiracies in the sense of secretly arranging with others to do things for their mutual benefit is an ubiquitous and daily activity.The problem arises, as it often does, where the benefit of one group is the detriment of another.The problem is everyone really is "conspiring" for their own benefit and often believe others are "conspiring" to their detriment.
Then we have cognitive dissonance where the same piece of evidence or some new information appears to undermine a conspiracy theory, either the plot is changed to make it consistent with the new information, or the theorists question the legitimacy of the new information.
These fearful types, those who do not trust themselves , turn the world inside out and distrust others, to lessen the feelings of guilt and fear of punishment.Instability makes most of us uncomfortable; we prefer to imagine we live in a predictable, safe world, so in a strange way, some conspiracy theories offer us accounts of events that allow us to retain a sense of safety and predictability...BUT TO HEAL...we need to grow up and learn to become psychologically responsible for ourselves.
ps I agree with what the last anonymous said to you Daniel
ReplyDelete