Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Hugo Chavez: Anti-Semite???

According to a "Global Jewish News" press release;


Chavez makes anti-Semitic slur

Venezuela’s president said in his Christmas speech that “the descendants of those who crucified Christ” own the riches of the world.
“The world offers riches to all. However, minorities such as the descendants of those who crucified Christ” have become “the owners of the riches of the world,” Chavez said Dec. 24 on a visit to a rehabilitation center in the Venezuelan countryside.


According to a 01/05/06 AP Wire: Simon Wiesenthal Center has condemned the "anti-Semite" remarks by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and asked for "retraction and public apologies" according to a press release of the Jewish entity with a Latin American chapter located in Buenos Aires.

According to the press release, on last December 24th, Chávez stated: "The world is for everybody, but it turned out that some minorities, the descendants of the same who crucified Christ, took possession of the world wealth."

"Two central arguments of anti-Semitism converge in these remarks -charging the Jewish with killing Jesus and linking them with wealth," the Center stated in a letter sent to Chávez.

"Both components have been used as the perfect excuse to justify the cruelest chasing and bloodshed throughout two millenniums," the letter signed by Shimon Samuels, directors of International Affairs of Wiesenthal Center, and Sergio Widder, representative for Latin America, underscored, as quoted by AFP.

Samuels and Widder added that they would call the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, the parties to the Southern Market (Mercosur) "to stay the process of Venezuela's incorporation in the regional block provided that Chávez shall not apologize in public."


Let's look at what he said. This is the original Spanish version.

"El mundo tiene para todos, pues, pero
resulta que unas minorías, los descendientes de los mismos que crucificaron a Cristo, los descendientes de los mismos que echaron a Bolívar de aquí y también lo
crucificaron a su manera en Santa Marta, allá en Colombia. Una minoría se adueñó de las riquezas del mundo, una minoría se adueñó del oro del planeta, de la plata, de los minerales, de las aguas, de las tierras buenas, del petróleo, de las riquezas,pues, y han concentrado las riquezas en pocas manos: menos del diez por ciento de
la población del mundo es dueña de más de la mitad de la riqueza de todo el mundo y a la...más de la mitad de los pobladores del planeta son pobres y cada día hay más pobres en el mundo entero."


Go to Google or AltaVista robot translation, you will see he is not talking about Jews or Romans, or Jewish people killing Christ. He is talking socialist allegorical rhetoric in a universal way.

Another day in discrediting the anti-Chavezistas.

Thank you Unrepentant Marxist and LE REVUE GAUCHE.





RENEGADE EYE

38 comments:

Mohamed said...

ut this rumor your discrediting is very rampant!
i doubt many will listen to counter proposals even if the proof is simply a translation!

sonia said...

Here is the Babel Fish translation:

"The world has for all, then, but it is that minorities, the descendants of such who crucificaron to Christ (...) A minority was appropriated the wealth of the world, a minority was appropriated gold of the planet..."

I'm sorry, but it could VERY EASILY be interpreted as anti-semitic...

Renegade Eye said...

This is the Google robot translation of the whole statement. "the world has for all, then, but it is that minorities, the descendants of such who crucificaron to Christ, the descendants of such which they threw to Bolivar of here and also crucificaron it to their way in Santa Marta, back in Colombia. A minority was appropriated the wealth of the world, a minority was appropriated gold of the planet, the silver, minerals, waters, good earth, petroleum, the wealth, then, and have concentrated the wealth in few hands: less than the ten percent of the population of the world she is owner of more than half of the wealth worldwide and to... more than half of the settlers of the planet they are poor and every day there are more poor men throughout the world."

I was distressed about the statement, until I read the whole statement translated. Its called allegory.

Reidski said...

Thanks Renegade for once again shedding some light on the efforts of international capitalism to destroy a democratically elected government.

Of course, whatever we say can be interpreted by others to mean whatever they want it to mean rather than what its intended meaning was. Anyway, "crucificaron" has got to be a made-up word????

sonia said...

Your translation and mine are essentially the same, and the context doesn't change much...

And allegory or not, it's still a dumb statement, which deserves this. And it puts Chavez in such an illustrious company as this crazy lady and this stupid jerk.

Renegade Eye said...

Put some clothes on, and reread the translation. No mention of Jews.

Reidski said...

sonia, sorry to say this, but you're stupid!

sonia said...

Are you kidding? You mean when Chavez said 'those who crucified the Christ', he meant 'the Pygmies of Central Africa' ? My mistake. I didn't read the Protocols of the Elders of Zaire, where this alternative version of history was explained...

Chairman eDog said...

Sonia, don't listen to Renegade--keep your clothes on. And Ren, are you seriously making this argument based upon a friggin' transbot?

Here's a good example of how much babelfish sucks. Let's say I tell Reidski to go fuck himself in French. Ever concerned for my opinion of him, he consults babelfish for the translation. This is what he gets:

FR: Reidski, va te faire sauter!

ENG: Will make you jump!

Now the poor schlepp is rumaging through his flat looking for a hidden trampoline.

Chairman eDog said...

I meant keep your clothes off.

Fontaine said...

Hugo Chavez was democratically elected -- in 1998 (note this is after he attempted a violent overthrow of the government in 1992). Since then, it's been far from democratic. The people of Venezuela had about as stacked of a deck as the Polish or Czechoslovaks did behind the Iron Curtain. (Wait, Communism leading to an eroding of democratic values? What a surprise!)

Let's look at 1998. According to the Carter Center (which endorses almost every election it sees as free and fair), "due to lack of transparency, CNE partiality, and political pressure from the Chávez government that resulted in unconstitutionally early elections, it was unable to validate the official CNE results."

The country was hit with worker's strikes (wait, isn't a guy like Chavez supposed to SUPPORT the workers?) so Chavez did what many strongmen have done in the past -- invent a coup plot and then use it as an excuse to crack down on dissent and opposition.

So when the people's voice was really heard and a recall was put on the ballot (after Chavez's goons threatened and assaulted people who signed the recall petition), Chavez used his influence to shut out almost all opposition from official state media. The deck was stacked and again reports came out challenging the fairness of the poll.

Also, I should point out that when the opposition began to collect names for the recall ballot for the second time, they collected 3.5-plus million names in four days.

Since then, Chavez has tightened the grip on the media (including a 40-month jail term for anything seriously critical of the government, even if truth was a defense) and his program of "land redistribution" sounds all too similar to Robert Mugabe's plan in Zimbabwe.

This is a guy who is waaaay more bark than bite (the New York Times, about as liberal of a paper you can get in the U.S., has basically said the gap between rich and poor hasn't shrunk a tremendous amount) and tries to against the flow to raise support of a vocal minority -- and it's working. Selling heating oil to poor folks in Boston and NYC was a nice move (it capitalized on anti-Bush feelings worldwide), but at what cost? He has yet to make poor people in his own country better off.

Even in rhetoric, the term "crucifiers of Jesus" is completely loaded and used only to foment anti-Semitic anger. Chavez might not be the best leader, but he's not dumb. He new exactly what he was saying when he called Jews that.

Chavez isn't funny; he's a joke.

CB said...

Renegade,

I am a Spanish speaker. That statement referred to the Jews (It doesn't make sense that it would relate to Romans).

"the world is for all, pues (in this sense it means however) but a a few of the decendants of they that crucified Christ...a minority owns the gold, silver, minerals, waters, good land, oil...

It is essentially, as you say, socialist rhetoric, which is not surprising, but he made specific reference to Jews. The only reason to add that unfortunate universal slur, is to incite those who are not immune to it.

Renegade Eye said...

This is a non robot translation.

I became a rebel and I dedicated myself to the true Christ - and this is the true Christ, I have no doubt about it. He is not that idiotic image with a stupid face that you can see in some churches, as if he were an idiot. No, Christ was and is one of the greatest revolutionaries in history and the first socialist of our era - the first socialist, and for that they crucified him.
...
There is enough water in the world for all of us to have water; there are enough lands, enough natural riches in the world to produce food for the whole population of the world; there is enough stone in the world and enough building materials to ensure that nobody is without a home. The world has enough for everyone, but now a few minorities, the descendants of the people who crucified Jesus, the descendants of the people who threw Bolivar out of here and crucified him in his turn, in Santa Marta over in Colombia... a minority has taken charge of the riches of the world, a minority has taken charge of the world's gold, silver, minerals, water, good land, oil, all its wealth, and it has concentrated that wealth in a few hands. Less than ten per cent of the world's population has charge of more than half of the wealth of the whole world. More than half of the world's people are poor and every day there are more poor people in the world. We, here, are resolved to change history, and every day we are joined and will be joined by more heads of state, presidents and leaders. Look at how the Bolivian people... Bolivia, the poorest country in South America, one of the poorest countries in the world, that republic founded by Bolivar and Sucre, which took the name of our own Bolivar - Bolivia is very rich: minerals, gold, silver, tin, oil and gas, fertile land, great mountains. It's certainly one of the poorest countries on earth, Bolivia, but the poor are waking up and they've just elected an Indian as President of Bolivia, for the first time in history. A true Indian - I'm half Indian, but Evo Morales is an Indian and a half.

Reidski said...

Renegade, I really like your blog, but these people are so mentally unstable that I don't think I can take their ramblings any longer - if it wasn't for sonia's pic, I think I would stop visiting you!

sonia said...

Truth hurts, Reidski!
CB and Fontaine are absolutely right.
I suggest, Reidsky, that you take a little trip to North Korea to see where Chavez's "revolution" will lead in a few decades. You are so easily fooled, Reidski, by "progressive" rhetoric about "helping the poor" and "fighting imperialism", that you cannot see the forest for the trees - the poor are FAR WORSE off under "democratic leaders" like Chavez than under "capitalist oppressors" like Bush...

Renegade Eye said...

When I started blogging, I looked for people from my own perspective, and political education. On my links section is one. That person doesn't link back.

This blog has a reputation, where people meet, and argue, in an almost civil manner.

reidski the conservatives who come on this blog, want discourse. Who'd ever know that the love in Edog's life is a female Maoist. I try to connect with the most interesting. Hard to find agreement on the blogosphere.

Regards.

Brian said...

Chavez may not be an anti-Semite but he is a populist, anti-democratic demagogue (even if his opponents share some of those characteristics).

Brian said...

"Let's look at 1998. According to the Carter Center (which endorses almost every election it sees as free and fair), "due to lack of transparency, CNE partiality, and political pressure from the Chávez government that resulted in unconstitutionally early elections, it was unable to validate the official CNE results.""

Actually this is a bit confusing. If memory serves correct, Chavez was elected in 1998 so it wouldn't have been his government that allegedly rigged these elections. It was the previous government that was in power and ran the '98 poll.

Fontaine said...

Sorry, I the Carter Center thing was from the 2000 elections. Just a typo. My regrets.

Fontaine said...

I will say, Brian, you're on the ball/ You a copy editor?

Reidski said...

So what the fuck are we gonna do then, invade Venezuela?

Oh, fuck, that's exatly what you fucking idiots wanna do, isn't it?

Sonia, Brian, e-fucking-dog, fontaine - you're all fucking assholes and the shit you've put on this blog is exactly why the world fucking hates you people.

My closing remarks on this is: Blow it our your collective asses, I fucking hate you all!

Renegage, I repeat, I like your stuff, but fuck these idiots, this is my goodbye to you! You have much to do to make your country a decent place to live, we'll try and make ours a decent place to live also. Good bye and good luck!

Renegade Eye said...

Later tonight I'll write to Reidski.

I'm disappointed in the tone of this post.

Many of the people who post here, come from unique backgrounds and interesting backgrounds. I think there should be more civility. Atleast pretend.

Unsane said...

I like the way the Congolese have been implicated in all this. Sonia-- "elders of Zaire?"

Jim said...

It sucks being poor it doesn't actually make any difference whether you live in a capitalist paradise or a socialist utopia and to suggest that it does means that you have no experience of poverty.

CB said...

reidski,

You have a problem with invasion? It would'nt take much, I say we nuke 'em!

Jim,

There is a huge difference in being poor in a socialist country and being poor in a capitalist (or marginally capitalist) country.

Just a few examples:

The biggest health problem for the world's poor is malnutrition - in America it is obesity.

The world's poor struggle with shelter. 46% of America's "poor" own their homes - the average size of these homes is larger than the average size of all homes (poor and non-poor)in France and England.

The world's poor are largely illiterate. As poor as the education is in some parts of the country, education is compulsory through grade 12.

I could go on, but the point is that capitalism increases the size of the pie so that there is a larger share for all.

As Jesus said, the poor will always be with you. The question is do the poor have an opportunity to do something about it. In a capitalist country the answer is yes.

sonia said...

Well, Jim, actually, you are completely wrong.

There is a difference, and to suggest that there isn't means that you have no experience of poverty under Communism (I do).

I hate Communism (I lived under it for two years), but if I were dirt poor and sure to be poor forever, I would rather be poor in a Communist country than a capitalist one. Why? Because there is something deeply humiliating to remain being poor while having a an opportunity to improve your lot. To watch others enjoy their lives of prosperity while struggling yourself every day is like being a naked masochist sexually humiliated in front of others, fully dressed.

But under Communism, things are totally different. Everybody is poor. Even a highly placed Communist party official can be purged and removed every day, and once removed, he has nothing, no house, no ranch, no retirement fund. To be poor there is to be relatively safe, you've got nothing to loose, no fear of internal intrigues, etc.

But you would have to live there to understand that. And I am sure you never did.

And, Reidski, I would love to invade Venezuela, but it's that fucking W.Bush who doesn't want to, damn peacenik coward son-of-a-bitch. Let's hope in 2008 the Americans will elect a real president who will give Chavez a full Allende treatment... Where is Pinochet when you need him?!

True oppressor of the people like Chavez have to be exterminated. No mercy!

Fontaine said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
CB said...

Jim,

Got anything more on "poverty theory" or statism v democracy you want to enlighten us with? LOL

Sorry Ren...couldn't help that one. Too pompous - I'll do my best to keep the "tone" higher from now on.

Chairman eDog said...

I think it's time to unveil my Babelfish bullshit translator.

Sonia, Brian, e-fucking-dog, fontaine - you're all fucking assholes and the shit you've put on this blog is exactly why the world fucking hates you people.

Translation: How dare you fucking yanks disagree with me! Can't you tell I'm fucking English, mate, and therefore far more witty, clever, and sophisticated than all of you? The world fucking hates you people because of your wealth, power, and independence.

My closing remarks on this is: Blow it our your collective asses, I fucking hate you all!

TRANSLATION: My closing remarks are this: I can't brook my views being challenged by inferior people so I'm just gonna wank myself silly looking at sonia's picture, and then cry myself to sleep.

We collectively apologize for our insolence.

Renegade Eye said...

Is it better being poor in Caracus or in USA, North Korea, Albania, or Kenya??

Atleast in Venezuela Chavez is building his base, by getting the support of the poor. The numbers show it.

I vote with Jim. It doesn't where you are poor. Poor is poor. It's the same in Caracus, Nairobi, Havana, Manilla, or Seville. I would prefer being poor, in a country, without social services or a welfare system, most certainly.

Thank goodness we have blogging, and can remember the days of poverty in the past.

CB said...

Rover,

I have gained new found respect for you. In fact, I will address you as Chairman Rover; nice translation.

A quick anectdote to support your point...

I was in Manhattan a couple of months ago at the Ruth's Chris on 7th Avenue, near Time's Square, I often eat at the bar in the restaurant. An English gentleman sat next to me. He was eating before joining a group to attend a play. He made some knee jerk comment about American Republicans and conservatives, out of the blue. I said, "I'm one of those."
I swear he turned 3 different colors. He was full of wine at this point. I'm 6'5" 250, not a small guy. In this public restaurant, he stood up and began to berate me...Bush this, war that, poor people, etc... and you're black! He then stormed out, he'd already paid his bill.

CB said...

Ren,

Sonia's point and mine are valid. Her's first. In socialist poverty, you're stuck, no possibility of doing something to change you're condition. Her second point and equally powerful, although it was just thrown in as an aside, is that socialism is egalitarian - everyone shares in the poverty.

My point is that the poor in New Orleans can eat and they won't be cold in the winter. Millions are starving (many to death)in North Korea. Millions can't escape the cold this winter in North Korea and will die of exposure. That doesn't happen in Minneapolis. The poor in Caracas are lucky to live in an adobe hut. In America, even if it is government housing, like I lived in, it is palacial by comparison. The rising tide analogy is apt. There is wide disparity in income from top to bottom in America but there is greater disparity between the elite politburo types and the abjectly poor in communist/totalitarian regimes. Even with that disparity in America, we can fund W.I.C. stamps, food stamps, AFDC, government cheese and peanut butter, Medicaid for the indigent, education, etc.

sonia said...

I think this thread is so great that I decided to do this... I hope you don't mind...

Renegade Eye said...

I certainly don't mind. I'm flattered.

Joe the Working Schlub said...

Damn liberal Babel Fish translation! Use a Republican translator next time!!!

Renegade Eye said...

See: http://www.forward.com/articles/7189

CB said...

I don't know who the American Jewish Congress is or what agenda they and the Venezuelan Jewish group may have, but if Chavez intended to blame the poverty on white imperialists/capitalists, he would have framed it differently. There are many ways in fact that he could have referred to white Christians, without mentioning that they are white or without saying that they are Christians, but he chose a phrasing that stretches credulity (if you are to believe the Venezuelan group which may very well be under coercion).

But thanks for the update and link. I think I need to do some more research on the periodical and groups.

Charlie Pottins said...

Chavez remark reminded me of the American song "Jesus was a man, a carpenter by trade etc" which finishes with a line saying that if Jesus was to live in New York town today "they'd soon lay Jesus Christ in his grave".
I don't know whether anyone ever condemned that song or the singer as antisemitic, it would all depend on who one interpreted as "they".
There was a Christian tradition of blaming Jews for the crucifixion, and of identifying Jews with "money power", but I don't think that was the intention of the song, and it is certainly open to question whether Chavez meant to be attacking Jews, After all he also referred to those who opposed Bolivar (although this was cut out of some published versions used by the Simon Wiesenthal centre etc) and in fact Bolivar enjoyed Jewish support.
The use of traditional rhetoric of the sort was a feature of some American Populist demagogues addressing rural audiences, and yet as some have noted, the same audience who might cheer a speech about "the Jew" of Wall Street, a mythical figure they had not met,
would then vote for Sol the hard-ware store owner whom they did know as mayor. Of course that was before the world learned the full evil to which antisemitism could lead, and I'm not saying this to excuse the rhetoric but to see it in perspective,
It is worth noting that the Jewish community in Venezuela did not feel threatened by the speech, but they have been worried by the use some US media and organisations are making of it. It is not the first time that the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the like ignore the wishes of Jews for whom they pretend concenrn (it happened over Norway where they published a completely false story and compeletely ignored letters from the Oslo community correcting them). On the other hand when Jews really were being persecuted under the Argentine military junta their plight was largely ignored, because the US and Israeli governemnts were doing good business then with Argentina.
By all means lets criticise Chavez or anyone else if necessary, but let's separate the fight against antisemitism from foreign policy objectives.