Sunday, December 03, 2006

Socialism or death! I choose Death

It appears likely that a victory by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela's presidential election could turn him, like Cuba’s ailing Fidel Castro, into a president-for-life. He has long since consolidated control over the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government. He has created a cult of personality about himself, creating the illusion to the masses that he is infallible. Similar to Castro, Chávez is seen as a darling to the left, especially by lefties in the United Kingdom
CNN too.
Hang on- Didn't Chavez lead a failed coup in 1992? Shades of the much reviled General Pinochet, surely. The left seems to have forgotten about it.....
The reality of life in Venezuela ought to have given the left cause for concern.
Go HERE and HERE and HERE.

As Chavez's hatred of the United States and Israel has grown, he has become close allies with a number of the West's most dangerous adversaries. Chavez has visited Iran on several occasions, has hosted President Ahmadinejad in Venezuela, and has made extensive bilateral agreements with the current Iranian government. Chavez became an idol of Hezbollah supporters during the recent conflict because of his outspoken criticism of Israel and support for Hezbollah's "resistance." He used his recent tour through Europe not only to hobnob with dictatorial friends in Belarus, but also to stock up on Russian weaponry.
Latest surveys suggest that Chavez is likely to win, by fair means or foul, at least 60% of the vote…Not only bad news for Venezualan golfers I suspect....
And yet Venezuela is a country previously dominated by politicians from a strong and consolidated democratic party system. Worrying isn't it? The quest now is how to oust a non-democratic, authoritarian ruler-together with his Cuban idol, and its repressive apparatus. How is this to be done....?

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

I despise socialism as and my views are a proof that.. and people like chavez and ahamdinejad are dime a dozen.. the world has seen many such men and will see many such more.. but occasionally the world does throw up men like Castro, whose views we may not respect but they themselves we cannot help but have a kind of respect for.. I agree with most of what you said.. but yet again I have to say that even me, a 'right' conservative cannot help but have a certain respect for men like Castro for they (not only symbolize many things I despise), but also are a symbol of the triumph of man over the worst odds.. and chavez and the iranian PM are not made of the same mettle..

P>S- deeply despise leftists, fascists and socialists.

istanbultory said...

Welcome Tejus,
I concur. Socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. To whit, Cuba and Venezuela.

Chávez said...

"I choose Death"

If this is what you and the other captitalists want, you can have it. Ahamdinejad and myself are going to liberate the world from oppressive capitalism. Viva el socialismo!

Anonymous said...

chavez..
I am not a mere capitalist but am more of an objectivist (read objectivism/ayn rand.. wikipedia works).. and how do you propose liberate the world for socialism is in fact the very opposite..\\

Istanbul Tory..
I agree with what you say.. and thank you for the kind words of welcome on my blog..

Anonymous said...

Chavez..
I forgot to add.. when you said 'I choose death'.. you have no idea as to how accurate you are.. It is exactly what comes out of socialism..

Chávez said...

Tejus Ramakrishnan,

You said "death'.. is exactly what comes out of socialism."

How do you explain the deaths caused by Iraq, WW-I & II, atomic bombs on Japan, colonialism, slavery and last but not least addictive cigarettes? All resulting from socialism?

Chávez said...

Tejus Ramakrishnan,

And who destroyed the lifes of millions of Chinese by making them addicted to opium for forcing China to trade with the East India Company?

Here a brief history of the opium war:

"By the 1830's, the English had become the major drug-trafficking criminal organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the twentieth century can even touch the England of the early nineteenth century in sheer size of criminality. Growing opium in India, the East India Company shipped tons of opium into Canton which it traded for Chinese manufactured goods and for tea. This trade had produced, quite literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as opium parlors proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the nineteenth century. This trafficing, it should be stressed, was a criminal activity after 1836, but the British traders generously bribed Canton officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to aggressively close down the opium dens.
...
War broke out when Chinese junks attempted to turn back English merchant vessels in November of 1839; although this was a low-level conflict, it inspired the English to send warships in June of 1840. The Chinese, with old-style weapons and artillery, were no match for the British gunships"


Were these deaths caused by socialists or capitalists?

Viva el socialismo!

Anonymous said...

no form of governance is perfect but some forms are better than others.. now the WW2 was caused by socialists/leftists/fascist through their ridiculous ideas and their torture of millions of people.. often the capitalistic world has had to take unfortunate and distasteful measures in order to protect and ensure the stability of the sacred institution of democracy.. without which you would not have the right to express your opinions.. now as for the opium wars and colonisation and such.. unfortunate events but on the whole still a million times less evil than socialism which aims to make people into clones without creativity.. read huxley's brave new world....

Voyager said...

If only Europe and the US would start an Energy Saving campaign to screw the oil dictatorships...............Chavez is just another Peron........a Caudillo

Colin said...

Chavez is just another Peron

And without Peron, we wouldn't have the musical Evita.

Voyager, what is the name of Chavez' wife?

vikki said...

"I choose death"

your epitaph....should make a good anti socialism slogan

Chávez said...

Tejus Ramakrishnan said read huxley's brave new world....

Tejus Ramakrishnan, read Karl Marx and the Bible!

Jesus said I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle

And Karl Marx said Democracy is the road to socialism.

And, Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex,

http://marx.thefreelibrary.com/

Anonymous said...

chavez..
nietzche said that "In heaven all the interesting people are missing." like vikki said your slogan would be perfect for anit-socialism.. now your bringing in god to prove socialism? chavez seriously why not try using facts with which you can prove your point with .. rather than bringing in god?
The debate regarding his existance has been going on a long time and is not about to end anytime soon.. so try using sources which can be questioned.. i.e. factual evidence... then you go on to state about the feminine upheaveal?
I suggest you stop watchin the da vinci code and try using a more authoritative source.. for anyone can go on to that site and write whatever the hell they please under any topic... and chavez while at it be more specific as to what social progress it is that you describe.. there many opinions which exist on both sides of that particular equation...

Anonymous said...

o.. ive read karl marx by the way..
the only thing which he says that makes sense is "religion is the opium of the masses". he suggests you eradicate religion, so if you believe in marx you cannot use god to prove your point... the rest of what he says is rubbish.. Even Hitler made more sense when he wrote the mein kampf..

Colin said...

Chavez,

You have to admit that Tejus has won the debate so far, doesn't he. Come on, where is your reply?

Chávez said...

Colin,

Here is my reply:

Tejus Ramakrishnan is using a sematic trick. He defines what he likes as capitalism and what he doesn't like as socialism or ridiculous ideas.

First, let's get the semantics straight. Hitler and the Nazis were not followers of Karl Marx. The killings of Jews on an industrial scale was not committed by Marxists. The gas for killing Jews was developed and produced by the capitalists of the chemical industry. Likewise, president Eisenhower warned about the dangers of the military-industrial complex in the USA which is not a socialist but a capitalist country.

Second, Tejus excuses that often the capitalistic world has had to take unfortunate and distasteful measures in order to protect and ensure the stability of the sacred institution of democracy might similarily be applied to socialism, i.e. often the socialist world has had to take unfortunate and distasteful measures in order to protect and ensure the stability of the sacred institution of socialism.

Thirdly, since socialistic countries didn't even exist 100 years ago, they cannot be responsible for all the misery, torture and killings of millions of human beings in all the centuries before that time.

Fourth, you asked me to be more specific as to what social progress it is that you describe. Sure. There is a general agreement, that this century with its welfare states is more socialistic than any other. Now, in which centuries are people enjoying the highest living conditions, in the socialistic (welfare state) century or in the less socialistic centuries before the establishment of the welfare state?

Fifth, you accuse me of citing the Bible and you demand that I should try using sources which can be questioned.. i.e. factual evidence. But where is the factual evidence for your claim that socialism ... aims to make people into clones without creativity.. The factual evidence you are giving for your claim is: read huxley's brave new world.... Huxley's brave new world is fiction and not fact.

Sixth, a condescending tone implying intellectual superiority on your part and stupidity on the other cannot substitute for your lack of factual evidence. You quickly adopted Newmania's style. Here some examples of your patronizing style:

try using sources which can be questioned (Reply: huxley's brave new world cannot be questionned?)


I suggest you stop watchin the da vinci code (Reply: May I suggest you stop watching Dallas and Denver clan)

and try using a more authoritative source.. for anyone can go on to that site and write whatever the hell they please under any topic (Reply: try to use a more authoritative source than huxley's brave new world and yourself)

what he says is rubbish (Reply: that is your opinion and not a factual evidence)

Tejus Ramakrishnan, while at it be more specific as to what social progress capitalism brings than apologizing its killings as unfortunate and distasteful measures, lumbing the anti-Marxist fascists together with socialists and simply accusing them all together of having stupid ideas.

Anonymous said...

colin..
once again, thank you..

chavez..
now chavez, chavez ye seem as pestersome as your name sake.. your argument does not seem to arise from cohrent thought but rather from that of a newly converted who cannot see the folly he has commited... And I am not trying to make ye feel inferior that is a result of your subconsciouness knowing the idiocy of your argument. So once and for I shall put at rest your silly thoughts on how the world would be a better place with socialism... Though I must admit that you have done half the job yourself constantly contradicting your own argument.. thus defeating your cause..

semantics - the use of language, code or meaning to convey a message.
now if you are incapable of understanding what those words say or choose to misinterpret them, it cannot be helped on my part. afterall you can only tell a fool to not step on shit, you cannot stop him if he is bent upon covering himself in it.

1. Ok. Hitler was not a text book marxist. Yet the limitation of your knowledge is show when you say that the marxists did not kill as much as the nazis. Oh yes they killed 4 times as much, so it is not the same. No, no my apologies was not Josef Stalin a humanitarian. Official Murder Count:
Stalin - 24 million
Hitler - 6 million
so technically the nazis were more compassionate.. shall we move on or would you like to spend some more time on the point.. alright alright.. give or take a couple of million lives.. not much of a difference or is there?

2/3.Democracy my friend is older than socialism. (read ancient greek civilization).. O and prior to democracy was a republic and all kinds of things but not socialism.. so how could socialists even found the institution of socialism without uplifting another? and then you try to justify socialism not on its own merits (dont blame none exist) but your excuse for socialism being better is that nero played the fiddle or violin when whichever city was on fire... excellent reason for socialism

4.You say you are going to define your concept of social welfare and then add people are currently enjoying a high standard of living??Do you even understand what you are trying to say, if socialism had itz way there will be no standard of living.. itz like communism.. all animals are equal, unless you are referring to Orwells animal farm where, all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.. and the best standard of living is in monaco, a state which acts as a showcase for capitalism...

4. The bible is a lenghty book.. so quote from it rather than quoting it as a whole.. plus the bible advocates that richer give to the poor but of their own choice.. it does not say im sending saints peter and paul to decide how to spend your wealth...

5. Fiction is often based on fact, but modified a little to emphasize the point. Since you disregard Huxley, then so be it with the bible.. but by disregarding books where exactly does your fact come from then? from the workings of a lunatic socialist pyschopath?? Id rather stick to fiction then; atleast it is rather more enjoyable..

6.condescending tone implying superiority? That is an opinion, but even if so, I do not apologize for being well educated if that is what you mean to say.. since you seem to have an inability to express your own thought without tryin to say something else is wrong.. poor education is again the fault of socialists who choose to abolish grammer schools and the like.. so what we get as an end product.. is people like yourself..

Now, I am done preaching and if you still hold your convictions for you choose not to listen to the coice of reason.. one cannot help you.. in which case, have faith in god and pray he delivers you from the evil that has come upon you..

P.S - The lord is kind, pray, and he may take you out of your misfortune.

istanbultory said...

“The Idiots of socialism are slaves, but they are no one's property and therefore no one's loss.” Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (1996) George Reisman


Whatever else you could say about conservative political systems it has never been in the name of conservatism that millions of people have been slaughtered. It’s always been in the name of some grand utopian ideal, the paradise of the workers, or racial purity or whatever. There’s always been some wonderful rhetoric, which even some of those espousing it believed.

Serf said...

Your choice of words is unfortunate.

You either choose Socialism and Death or neither.

Chávez said...

Dear Mr. Tejus Ramakrishnan,

Thank you for your highly educated, polite and fact-based evidence in defense of your theory, e.g.

chavez ye seem as pestersome as your name sake
...
cannot see the folly he has commited...

your silly thoughts
...
a fool to not step on shit,
...
lunatic socialist pyschopath
...
you seem to have an inability to express your own thought
...


Finally, you claimed that your diatribe was the product of "being well educated" and
the "coice of reason".

lol

In comparison to your insults, Newmania was a model of politeness.

I guess you will have to "slightly" improve your debating style for your dissertation defense at the private University of Buckingham, except if rich dad is able to solve the problem by a donation. Alternatively, you might try to take the silver spoon out of your mouth and seriously work on your style.

Anonymous said...

chavez..
I see that you fail to see that first my gave my opinion(hence facts are not required, it is an opinion) and only then proceeded to demolish your doubts with facts.
Then, yes it was spelling mistake it meant to be 'voice of reason'; unfortunately unlike you I do not have the time to go write on word, check my spelling and publish.
I see that you have been unable to refute any of my arguments based on fact other than my opinion of you.. Do look up the meaning of the word opinion sometime...
Well being born into a respectable family and having good breeding is hardly a crime.. (and whether my father chooses to make a donation is best left to him..) On another note I wonder how one can criticize the silver spoon merely because they did not have the same privilege.. (though most people who criticize it, wish for it and resent those who have it)..
so chavez...
when you are able to refute the points I made.. (they are numbered just to make things clear).. then please say something...
and I do not apologise for my family nor my background.. I am proud of it.. And as the 4th Earl of Chesterfield said 'A man's own good breeding is the best security against other people's ill manners.'

Anonymous said...

Oh by the way dont bother correcting my grammatical mistakes..
I neither want to know nor care..

Chávez said...

Tejus Ramakrishnan,

This time, you are courteous: please say something...

I appreciate that you refrained from insults and instead cared about style.

Therefore, I am willing to admit that you are right.

Style is very important in any debate because arrogance and insults arouse such strong adverse emotions that reason doesn't get a chance.

Istanbultory said it brief, best, convincingly and with style:

"Whatever else you could say about conservative political systems it has never been in the name of conservatism that millions of people have been slaughtered. It’s always been in the name of some grand utopian ideal, the paradise of the workers, or racial purity or whatever. There’s always been some wonderful rhetoric, which even some of those espousing it believed."

He is absolutely right and so are you.

Anonymous said...

chavez..
thank you for accepting the beliefs of conservatism and reason..
do look up toger scruton.. he expresses the same views in much more eloquent manner..

Chávez said...

Tejus Ramakrishnan,

Thanks. I like:

"I take the view that human beings are of limited mental capacity, limited memory, limited understanding, but when they inherit some complex social organism that contains more wisdom than is contained in any human head, and therefore it ought to be respected—and if you want to improve it, you should be humble in doing so." Roger Scruton - 25 July 2005

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/counterpoint/stories/s1417584.htm