The relentless lies about Chavez: Anti-semitism

There have been several attempts to accuse Hugo Chavez of anti-semitism, all ballyhooed by the corpo-fascist media in a shark frenzy of hatred, and all of them thoroughly debunked and discredited. Below is a description of the one that started it off--that Chavez accused Jews of killing Jesus. The writers of the article, Steve Rendall and Jim Naureckas, detail this sharkfest--how it jumped from the Simon Wiesenthal Center to rightwing rags to the L.A. Times and so on, and they explain how wrong it was--with the Jewish community of Venezuela finally calling upon the Simon Wiesenthal Center to stop this lie. They, too, had edited out the context that made the quote completely innocent of anti-semitism.

I want to get at the cumulative effect of media feeding frenzies like these--that is, the bombardment of the public consciousness with relentless, false, irrational, mob-like attacks, as well as a constant stream of subtler lies, distortions, failures to provide context and disinformation that underpins the more naked hostility toward Chavez, and the creation of a completely different being than the real Chavez--a bogeyman 'Chavez' that consists of impressions, shadows, gut feelings and unseen things (images from nightmares), that seems to be a group project of the corporate media monopolies. It's not just one corporate newspaper; its not just one TV news station. It's all of them, all with the same point of view, all picking up on the same kinds of falsehood--that Chavez is anti-semitic, that Chavez is a "dictator," that Chavez is suppressing "free speech," that Chavez is somehow an aggressor and a threat (though he has never harmed anyone, and has done much good), and lately that Chavez is threatening a war with Colombia, and is therefore a "destabilizing" influence, "bad for the region," etc. etc.

These things are so unreal, so false, that your mind reels at the bombardment of disinformation. You don't know where to begin. To articulate your reaction to someone else--to someone who believes these falsehoods--requires rebooting reality itself to some commonly understood set of facts and analytical procedures.

We've witnessed other instances of this harpy media din--such as the Howard Dean "scream" tape and the "Swift-boating" of John Kerry--vile attacks on two of our country's finest public servants. But I don't think we've seen anything quite like the corporate media campaign against Chavez, for intensity, unreality and longevity. And it is echoed as well by the State Department, by Congresspeople--by virtually everybody in our political establishment with a platform and a trumpet (a select group, to be sure--but our country is run by a select group of power players).

I think it's self-evident that this kind of ranting, corpo-fascist "groupthink" that calls itself "journalism" is extremely corrosive of our democracy in general. And it is clearly a consequence of corporate media monopolies--ownership of all media outlets by a handful of billionaires. But there is a more specific and life-threatening consequence, and that is the manufacture of a ranting, corpo-fascist "groupthink" narrative for the promotion of war. The narrative doesn't convince very many that unjust war is necessary--and it isn't meant to. It is intended more as a "cover" for killing masses of people for some corporate/war profiteer goal. It is intended to turn peoples brains off--to make them feel powerless in the face of an overwhelming war machine. When it gears up for war, there is nothing we, the people--the only true sovereigns of this country--can do. That is how we feel.

We saw this in the lying narrative about WMDs in Iraq. Then, our monstrous war machine was, one way or another, denied Iran's oil. And it is now going after Venezuela's oil, with this preliminary of demonization of an elected, democratic, popular leader--a tough nut for demonization, but the campaign has nevertheless been so persistent and repetitive, and so long term--at least five years running-- that it is succeeding.

Please see the evidence and my surmises about a Pentagon war plan, using Colombia as the "stepping stool" into neighboring Venezuela (and possibly also into Venezuelan ally Ecuador, on Colombia's border to the south), to topple these democratic governments and commandeer their oil for the US war machine and for globalized "free trade for the rich."

The "South Vietnamization" of Colombia
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x26700

I hope to God I'm wrong. Maybe this is all being done just to keep the notion of "socialism" out of our vocabulary and our consciousness, up here in the north, and to wage mere economic warfare on the people of Venezuela and Latin America--to end their hopes for social justice and independence, to find ways to steal their elections, and restore corporate tyranny that way, wherever it has been challenged. The US is pouring billions of our tax dollars into this non-war strategy as well.

But recent events--including the revelation of this secretly negotiated Pentagon/Colombia pact for seven new US military bases in Colombia and considerable other evidence of war assets being put in place, surrounding Venezuela's main oil region, PLUS this demonization campaign, it starts looking overwhelming that we are not just looking at typical corporate propaganda--we are looking at the first part of a war plan: the pervasive, sickening lies about the "enemy."

This is my context for doing a review of this demonization campaign against Chavez. I've done a couple of other posts here about it (on the RCTV and "miracle laptop" demonizations of Chavez). Many leftist writers have noticed the demonization campaign. Many have contributed fine investigative articles (like the one below) to try to stop a particular sharkfest against Chavez--with facts and reason. But the cumulative effect remains. The Pentagon can manufacture a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident on the Colombia/Venezuela border tomorrow (or when they get their tropps, contractors and bases in place) and invade Venezuela with all sorts of pious, lying justifications, and I'm afraid that most Americans would think, "Oh, yeah, that dictator in that, um, banana republic. Oh well. Who cares about him?"

And this will be the thought in a lot of intelligent minds as well. Some progressive Jews--though Chavez is not anti-semitic (rather the opposite--according to the Venezuela Jewish community). Some believers in democracy--though Chavez is not a "dictator" (not even close). Believers in free speech--though Chavez has not suppressed free speech (far from it). Believers in peace who have taken the hit that Chavez is somehow an aggressor--though he has harmed no one and has even been called "the great peacemaker" (by President Lula da Silva of Brazil). And on and on. Many people don't have time, or don't bother, to investigate impressions like these that are planted in their brains by the corporate media. So there these impressions sit, in many peoples' minds, like a resource that the warmongers can dip into at any time.

-------------------------------------


Misquoting Chavez to Make Him Anti-Semitic
by Steve Rendall and Jim Naureckas
Published on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 by Minuteman Media

It began with a bulletin from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency accusing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez of invoking an old anti-Semitic slur. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles quickly picked it up, sending out word that in a Christmas Eve speech, Chavez had declared, "the world has wealth for all, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people that crucified Christ, have taken over all the wealth of the world."

The Voice of America covered the charge immediately. Then opinion journals on the right took up the issue. "On Christmas Eve, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez's Christian-socialist cant drifted into anti-Semitism," wrote the Daily StandardThe American Spectator was so excited about the quote, which it called "the standard populist hatemongering of Latin America's new left leaders," that it presented it as coming from two different speeches, one on Christmas and one on Christmas Eve.

Then more mainstream outlets began to pick up the story. "Chavez lambasted Jews," the New York Daily News' Lloyd Grove reported. A column in the Los Angeles Times used the quote to label Chavez "a jerk and a friend of tyranny." Wall Street Journal] columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady called Chavez's words "an ugly anti-Semitic swipe."

One can see why the words attributed to Chavez provoked outrage. After all, descriptions of the Jews as a wealthy minority that "crucified Christ" have been an anti-Semitic stock in trade for centuries. But the criticisms of Chavez almost uniformly used selective, even deceptive editing to remove material that put his words in a different context.

Here's a translation of the full passage from Chavez's speech:

"The world has an offer for everybody but it turned out that a few minorities, the descendants of those who crucified Christ, the descendants of those who expelled Bolivar from here and also those who in a certain way crucified him in Santa Marta, there in Colombia--they took possession of the riches of the world, a minority took possession of the planet's gold, the silver, the minerals, the water, the good lands, the oil, and they have concentrated all the riches in the hands of a few; less than 10 percent of the world population owns more than half of the riches of the world." (emphasis added)

The biggest problem with depicting Chavez's speech as an anti-Semitic attack is that Chavez clearly suggested that "the descendants of those who crucified Christ" are the same people as "the descendants of those who expelled Bolivar from here." As American Rabbi Arthur Waskow, who questioned the charge, told the Associated Press, "I know of no one who accuses the Jews of fighting against Bolivar." Bolivar, in fact, fought against the government of King Ferdinand VII of Spain, who reinstituted the anti-Semitic Spanish Inquisition when he took power in 1813.

Most of the accounts attacking Chavez left the reference to Bolivar out entirely; the Wiesenthal Center deleted that clause from the speech without even offering an ellipsis, which is tantamount to fabrication.

As Waskow further pointed out, in the Gospel accounts, "it was the Roman Empire, and Roman soldiers, who crucified Jesus." While it's true that anti-Semites often accuse Jews of killing Jesus, it's not fair to assert that anyone who refers to the crucifixion of Jesus is attacking the Jewish people.

That Chavez's comments were part of some anti-Semitic campaign was disputed by the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela, which wrote to the Wiesenthal Center: "We believe the president was not talking about Jews. You have acted on your own, without consulting us, on issues that you don't know or understand." The American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress agreed with the Venezuelan group's view that Chavez was not referring to Jews in his speech.

In context, the Chavez speech seems to be an attempt by Chavez to link the attacks on his populist government to the attacks on his two oft-cited heroes, Jesus and Bolivar; the "minority" that would link the two would be the rich and powerful minority of society.

Surely anti-Semitism is a problem that deserves to be treated seriously, and not used as a pretense to bash official enemies.

(emphasis added)

---

Steve Rendall is with Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, the national media watch group that offers well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship, based in New York City. Jim Naurekas is editor of "EXTRA!," a publication of FAIR.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0315-28.htm


-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------


Rendall and Naurekas' final sentence bears repeating: "Surely anti-Semitism is a problem that deserves to be treated seriously, and not used as a pretense to bash official enemies."

But it didn't end there. There were other such false stories, aimed, I think, at progressives--Jewish and non-Jewish--to fuzzy up the minds of some portion of the progressive and leftist population, about Chavez having some taint in this regard. It took time, research, extensive effort--to follow the news stories, to analyze them, to track down the facts. But how many people read "Common Dreams" or DU or other outlets where people are trying to seek the truth? The trumpeters of the falsehoods are, a) everywhere, in everybody's homes, cars, on their breakfast tables--with monopolies on the 'news' and access; and b) are only after creating an IMPRESSION--an imprint on the subsconscious, that Chavez is, somehow, bad, a threat, not worth defending, maybe toppling him is okay.

You write too much. As anybody knows, anybody who criticizes Israeli crimes is "anti semitic". It's a smear the Israel lobby likes to use. Problem with Chavez is he talks too much, gives them a lot of material to cherry pick.

The Israel Lobby (re motive to smear Chavez completely unfairly, because he opposes Israel's oppression of the Palestinians) is just ONE item in a LONG LIST of corporate 'news' monopoly slanders against Chavez, that is so unfair, so relentless, and so apparently coordinated, that it looks very like the WMD campaign in the leadup to the war on Iraq, and, combined with other evidence--such as this secretly negotiated Pentagon/Colombia deal for SEVEN new US military bases in Colombia--looks like the preliminary to Oil War II.

You can dismiss each of the themes of the anti-Chavez psyops-disinformation campaign, and each of the 'news'/opinion items as they have come up, but you really cannot ignore the CUMULATIVE effect of all of these themes and phonied-up stories, without being blind.

And I suppose you could dismiss the entire thing--including the US military buildup in Colombia--as just your average everyday global corporate predator/war profiteer bullshit propaganda, aimed at retaining Colombia as a war booty venue, and fending off socialist ideas from infecting more Latin Americans, or, God forbid, north Americans--but it is getting harder and harder to dismiss the demonization of Chavez and Venezuela as "merely" that. It is just too intense. That is my point. You seem to be deliberately ignoring it.

Let's stick to one subject at a time. There's no "Chavez psyops" campaign. psyops is a technique used in warfare, what they're doing to Chavez is to use his own words and actions to hang him. Because Chavez likes to talk hours on end, it's easy to find material to quote.

Chavez has invited the ire of the Israel Lobby, by supporting the Palestinian cause. The Israel Lobby happens to be the most powerful lobby by far in the USA, and directs US foreign policy into an imperial stance - which is mostly focused to have the US fight Muslims who support Palestinian freedom.

When Chavez starts condemning Israel, he becomes a prime target for said Israel Lobby. And because TODAY US imperialism is hijacked by the Israel Lobby to serve Zionist interests, this puts Venezuela in the Lobby's (and therefore the empire's) cross hairs. I know this isn't the Palestinian discussion board, but it's important for people to understand that today's US imperial drive is fueled by lobbies, of which the Israel Lobby is the main player. It's not a coincidence that most pro-empire and pro-war propaganda within the US is fueled by the likes of William Kristol, and people linked to Israel such as Rupert Murdoch.

Thus the "imperial moves" we observe in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere, are a result of the Israel Lobby's influence. It isn't really about oil, it's about Palestine and the Zionist's desire to have a swifter end to "the Palestinian problem". They want to be free to carry out their ethnic cleansing and consolidate themselves in the West Bank.

When Chavez takes the Palestinian side, then of course the empire reacts to shut down the threat. Therefore the move in Colombia is a lobby-inspired effort which Obama is too weak to blunt. Chavez is palling with the Iranian regime as well. This is a crazy move. Iran has nothing to bring to Venezuela, and this of course gets the Zionists REALLY excited.

The incompetence I see in Venezuela's economic direction, the brain drain, middle class flight, and dilution of efforts (ie there doesn't seem to be a foreign issue in which Chavez doesn't want to get involved, as if he had endless resources at his disposal), mean he'll weaken his government, and Venezuela seems headed into a dead end. And the Israel Lobby will make sure it stays there.

And you're not helping matters by making believe all is well. Got to be realistic, understand your own weaknesses, and do something about it, rather than going on about the great achievements of a government which seems to be headed in the wrong direction. Myself, I'd rather see Chavez do well, as long as he doesn't become an extremist or a tyrant. But I think the answer is to be more like Lula, and less like Castro. And I don't think this is going to happen.