I think it is. I wanted some opinions on the matter though. I’m sure there will be war against at least one of them within the next two years, but does anyone here besides me think it’s highly likely that Obama will use the same trick his heroes Lincoln and FDR did? FDR was the last President to do that (unless Bush covered some things up), although LBJ staged a false flag attack.
YES!!!
I just posted this over on the thread You’re opinion about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, but I will post it again here:
The Future is Calling, by G. Edward Griffin:
Explains the major ideological split in the Western World: Collectivism vs. Individualism
Part 2: Secret Organizations and Hidden Agendas
Introduces the two major branches of collectivism: Fabianism and Lenininsm
Introduces the false-flag strategy: Aggravate, Facilitate, Insulate
An analysis of World War I, World War II, Operation Mongoose during the Kennedy administration
9/11 and the Bush administration cover-up
Part 5: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
Griffin’s proposed solution and strategy to achieve freedom
I’m not sure what the specific tricks will be, but there will be tricks. And the strategy will be the same as it has been throughout history.
Thanks LeeO:)
You’re Welcome.
I have heard that Venezuela might be another target. Isn’t it fun playing “where will the war be next?” 
Venezuala? Its sick. No one ever questions why we rip on them constantly. There are a LOT of brown bogeymen in south america, let alone the world. No one seems to think its strange that we focus almost exclusively on him. Its all lies too.
No one points out that venezuela has larger unconventional (heavy oil) reserves than Saudi Arabia has conventional. Derp.
Let’s get this straight:
-
The US has a propaganda campaign against Chavez so that the public will support a future invasion of Venezuela so we can get the oil. This is what you are pointing out with the Wikipedia article, right?
-
Chavez really is an evil dictator who is ruining his country. He has his own propaganda campaign to make everyone think he is “fighting for the people.”
Both 1 and 2 are true.
1 for sure. I agree that Chavez is doing bad by his country but am not convinced he’s just an evil extorter. I think he’s a populist. I’ve never seen him flaunting large amounts of wealth. Every interview I see him in he’s wearing business casual…
What’s the difference between a populist and a evil extorter? 
No, I get your point, and I do not follow Chavez closely so I have been brainwashed by the American media. I watched some of his speech at the Copenhagen Conference condemning capitalism. Then I read this article in Investor’s Business Daily. Is the IBD article false propaganda?
Yes he reads a lot of left wing stuff. It is very in vogue with the educated south americans. Or at least that’s the impression I get.
Oh, you know I’m no expert but I do remember this. Yeah so there were a bunch of community swimming pools, and they were too costly to maintain. So he opted to shut them down and make fewer but larger swimming pools. So he’s not confiscating private property. It was all always public. How he knows what exact size and location swimming pools should be is beyond me though.
So he didn’t steal that guy’s ranch and turn it over to the public? It was public already? Doesn’t make sense to me…unless the whole article is a lie.
…listen. I’m sure he had to nationalize some industries. Otherwise he wouldn’t be a government. So I’m not surprised, and nor should anyone else be, to learn that he’s confiscating private property.
Well, the article does say he was “Acting like Robert Mugabe on cocaine”. This is not very professional. There are a lot of other colorful words in this essay, and no links to independent sources. The raw facts may be true, but I seriously doubt the article shows anything close to how it really is.
The article insinuates, but never gives evidence of, Chavez doing all this for personal gain. I can find nowhere on the internet, even inflammatory american media, accusing him of living a lucrative rich-man’s life.
They also seem to leave out the possibility that maybe if Chavez is doing such a bad job, the majority could vote him out of office. He’s a populist. He’s doing a lot of bad things, but there’s no evidence that he’s really a bad guy.
…listen. I’m sure he had to nationalize some industries. Otherwise he wouldn’t be a government. So I’m not surprised, and nor should anyone else be, to learn that he’s confiscating private property.
Point well taken. All governments confiscate private property.
Well, the article does say he was “Acting like Robert Mugabe on cocaine”. This is not very professional. There are a lot of other colorful words in this essay, and no links to independent sources. The raw facts may be true, but I seriously doubt the article shows anything close to how it really is.
Agreed.
The article insinuates, but never gives evidence of, Chavez doing all this for personal gain. I can find nowhere on the internet, even inflammatory american media, accusing him of living a lucrative rich-man’s life.
Apparently, Mao Zedong lived in a one-bedroom apartment and had a small government salary. So there are dictators who don’t live a rich-man’s life, but this doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it for personal gain. Power is a personal gain, and Chavez has a lot of that.
They also seem to leave out the possibility that maybe if Chavez is doing such a bad job, the majority could vote him out of office. He’s a populist. He’s doing a lot of bad things, but there’s no evidence that he’s really a bad guy.
Well, this where his own propaganda comes into play. I’m sure the mainstream media in Venezuala pumps pro-Chavez junk into everyone’s head 24/7, like with Castro in Cuba. Is this not correct? Kind of nullifies the whole voting thing. Don’t all the South American guys set things up so that they are basically “elected” dictators without term limits?
“Bad guy” personally? I guess there’s no evidence. “Bad guy” in terms of destroying liberty and causing widespread human suffering? Yes, I’m pretty sure. Does that mean we should go “save” the Venezuelans with our benevolent military? Hell no.
No doubt he gains a great deal of satisfaction from being leader, but this doesn’t mean he’s doing it at the expense of the common man. He probably thinks its good for the people if he has a lot of power.
Actually, the Venezualan media is worse on him than the American media. They make up tons and tons of lies about him, rip on his socialist fascist totalitarian regime, etc. They basically blame him for everything.
Then there’s the state owned venezualan media, which, is probably biased, but not openly so. He has a TV show where citizens can call in and ask him questions. Even if its just for show, this is way, way more exposure than any American politician gets.
Though I don’t really understand how venezuala is ‘socialist’ while america is not. Since gov accounts for only 35% of venezuela’s expenditures by GDP, and their per capita worker productivity is lower, so 35% of GDP might be the bare minimum amount of education, security, and food price subsidization that his government does.
I also don’t see why a totalitarian government would seek to educate its people. Chavez’s policies have successfuly increased adult literacy.
So I think Chavez does a lot of damage, but its kind of like the people’s socialism. At least as far as I can see. And the people’s socialism is way better than the elite’s socialism, which is what they had before and we have now. Just imagine if all our leaders actually wanted to help us, and just didn’t do it very efficiently, how much better our lives would be.
Only the ones on our payroll
That is normal in a left wing country. The Soviet Union conducted the most radical literacy campaign ever. Eg literacy in 1926 was 51% in 1939 it was 81%.
It is in vogue with SOME educated south americans.
And the level of that “education” is debatable.
One word: OIL
The socialist goverment controls it, therefore Chavez and his minions control it.
Have you ever watched TELESUR? please do and then you tell if that is not propaganda.
To gain the poor peoples’ favor.
There is no such thing.
I also don’t see why a totalitarian government would seek to educate its people. Chavez’s policies have successfuly increased adult literacy.
Not exactly related, but I thought it would be interesting. Orlando Figgs wrote a book on the Russian Revolution (possibly the best I have ever read) called A People’s Tragedy. In it, he mentions that under Tsar Nicholas the Russian literacy rate increased substantially, opening Marxist literature to much broader base of readers. Ironic?
They also seem to leave out the possibility that maybe if Chavez is doing such a bad job, the majority could vote him out of office. He’s a populist. He’s doing a lot of bad things, but there’s no evidence that he’s really a bad guy.
There is substantial evidence of rigged elections. Chavez also has very tight control over the military, which he mostly does by buying them nice toys and keeping his officers rich. I have an article coming out soon on Mises Daily on Venezuela. It doesn’t necessarily blame Chavez, but it shows just how bad the Venezuelan economy is doing right now.
Chavez is kept under the microscope. That is good. He is in power and those in power should be kept under one. But are they? What would turning this microscope onto other governments in Latin America and beyond reveal? How does Venezuela compare with Colombia, Honduras, Salvador or say Egypt, Morocco etc?
Also what is the likely alternative to Chavez? Who is the leader of opposition there? What was the government he displaced like?
Saying Chavez is bad is nothing new. He is at the helm of a government. Of course he is bad. Question is the context. What is he like in comparison to some of the others?
Does he keep it all in his living room? I’m sure he’s not using it efficiently but nothing you’ve said indicates he’s looting the country for personal monetary benefit.
I’ll take your word for it.
He could have just bought guns to maintain power instead…
Why? If the government takes my money, and then uses it to buy me clothes, thats lame. But its not nearly as bad as if they take my money and transfer it to the bank accounts of the ruling elite.