Skip to content

Hugo Chávez: Enemy of the US Empire, Marxist and Money Power Stooge

March 27, 2013

Hugo Chávez was loved by many, both in Venezuela and abroad. His fierce resistance of US Imperialism was welcome and much appreciated world-wide. But his domestic policies were openly Marxist and his most notable legacy is the Bolivarian Alliance for the America’s, aiming at social, economic and political integration of Latin American Nations. In short: he was a globalist.

By Anthony Migchels for Henry Makow and Real Currencies

Hugo Chávez is no longer with us. We’ll miss the old rascal: it’s always pleasant to hear people denounce the US Empire. He also did much to alleviate at least the worst of the poverty suffered by millions in Venezuela. These people were tyrannically oppressed by the Empire’s rule over Latin America, especially through its corporations. Millions will never forget him for it.

Resisting the Empire and helping so many out of the gutter in the process are surely noteworthy accomplishments. But we have been blinded so often by the old adage that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. And this is the case with Hugo Chávez too.

Was Chávez a mason? I guess he was. There is this masonic handshake with Obama. There are other signs. But I have not seen conclusive proof and it’s not like he was flashing their signs all over the place, so let’s reserve judgement until proof is delivered.

His great example, Simon Bolivar, definitely was. Bolivar led the rise against Spanish rule in northern Latin America in the early 1800’s. His masonic watchword was ‘liberty’, fitting well with that masonic construct known as the United States, which only a few decades earlier gained ‘independence’ from the City.

He became the president of a major country, named Gran Colombia, which existed between 1819 and 1830. After gaining independence from Spain, the country succumbed to a power struggle between those wanting a strong centralized state and those looking for regional autonomy in a federation. Bolivar led the quest for centralization of power, an eternal tell tale of the real enemy. In 1830 Gran Colombia ceased to exist: the conflict ended when it fell apart in a number of smaller entities, Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador. Later Panama seceded from Colombia.

One of the Banker’s more memorable, yet unknown defeats. It certainly didn’t damage the reputation of their man Bolivar and that is probably not a coincidence. Money Power defeats are not part of the history they write, lest they might inspire others.

Chávez made the reliving of the Bolivarian dream a key part of his agenda. Venezuela is a fairly rich country because of its oil and Chávez invested billions upon billions in his project, called the Bolivarian Alliance for the America’s. It was Chávez’ answer to the failed US driven ‘Free Trade Area of the Americas’.

He financed FARC, a ridiculous outfit run by coke-dealers parading as Marxist champions of the people. True, they’re probably not worse than the Empire run Government in Bogota. But it’s always the same: the conflict itself is the goal and both protagonists either are directly run from the City, or are their most welcome stooges without realizing it.

The Marxist: did he really help the poor?
Chávez openly called for a ‘socialism of the 21st century’. He denounced the Soviet Union as State Capitalism, which is a very apt description. But his own politics were similar in many respects. He created thousands of ‘communal councils’ throughout the country. In Russian that’s ‘soviets’. They are touted as wonderful examples of ‘participatory democracy’, but outfits like these are actually comfortably run from the top down with tools like the ‘delphi method‘.

He started tens of thousands of state-owned cooperatives, financed with government credit.

As a result, the private sector tanked: during his reign the number of private sector jobs declined with an astonishing 30%. Half of Venezuelans depend on the informal economy to survive. Public payrolls have ballooned.

Venezuela enjoyed an unprecedented oil-boom under Chávez and he used some of this money to build Social Services, alleviating the plight of the poor. Housing was a top priority for him and public spending on health also rose significantly, from 1.6% of GDP in 2000 to 7.7% in 2006. These are basically his main achievements. But an oil-boom will end and it remains to be seen whether the welfare state is sustainable with such a severely mauled private sector.

Chávez did absolutely nothing about the real issue: banking, debt and usury. The Venezuelan Central bank is State owned, like in most nations, except the US. But State owned means: providing State sanction to private banks to loot economy with their usury.

Its banks are private, many are run by his pals. There was a crisis in Venezuelan banking a few years ago, leading to nationalization of some of them. Meaning the Venezuelans were on the hook for their ‘balances’, better called black holes. He actually arrested a handful of bankers. But most were left to continue their plunder unscathed.

While he wisely paid off all debt to the IMF and the World Bank in 2008, Public Debt itself rose from $1400 per capita in 2002 to $3400 in 2010. During this time there was a major inflation, the Bolívar lost 90% of its value. Meanwhile, he fixed the Bolívar-Dollar exchange rate at only one third of the Dollar’s real value, an incredible subsidy for Transnationals repatriating their profits and the wealthy importing luxury goods. The poor paid for this subsidy and it cost them untold billions.

In short: while redistributing wealth from the middle classes to the poor through taxation, monetary slavery, our real predicament, ruled supreme during his reign.

Chávez was a self-styled ‘socialist-feminist’, attacking paternal rights and the family.
in 2008, during an event to commemorate the 9th anniversary of the National Institute of Women (which is now a government ministry) Chávez criticized machismo and declared himself a “convinced socialist-feminist”.

“Socialists must be feminists or they won’t be complete human beings. With the support of our women we must strengthen unity in Venezuela… We have to take firm steps towards…the total emancipation of gender and be more just with our women,” he said.

He added that women were condemned by history, but the “Bolivarian administration developed community plans against family violence and in favor of single mothers, which has meant huge positive advances”.” (Source)

The results have been predictable: sexual degeneracy, single mums and escalating teen pregnancy.

Also not helping the poor is the fact that Venezuela succumbed to an incredible rise in crime under his watch. Hard to believe, but these days one is more likely to be murdered Caracas than in Kabul or Baghdad.

As usual with commie strongmen ‘helping the poor’, Hugo took good care of himself: he seems to have owned between one and two billion dollars at the time of his death. Not bad for a kid from the gutter.

Many people will never forget Hugo Chávez. He helped emancipate the poorest. He scolded the Empire.

But his legacy is built on quicksand and in the typically Marxist way he did nothing to stop the root cause of poverty. All he did was destroy the private sector and the middle classes to give to the poor and to centralize power in Caracas by switching from a private economy to a State run one. The wealthy had nothing to fear and much to gain under his rule. He became very wealthy himself. Meanwhile he furthered the Internationalist agenda by laying the foundation for Latin American ‘cooperation’.

It remains difficult to see for many that the evil US Empire is ‘opposed’ by no less evil forces. Be it the Russian, Chinese or whatever leadership.

Hugo Chávez was one of them.

The US Empire is Not the Money Power!
Muammar Gaddaffi and the Money Power
Is China part of the New World Order?

  1. Bourchakoun permalink

    In my opinion he was just some dictator who maybe tried to do good in his own erring way.

    He was no way aware of the Big Agenda – even being a mason does not prove anything since most masons are just meant to be obedient soldiers for a few scraps at the table (albeit the scraps go into the millions, but that are scraps for the Money Masters). And he certainly was not obidient, since they almost got him killed in the big coup (nice report on that by Gregg Palast). They wanted him gone and his cancer was probably induced by them, since that is so easy to do.

    But of course it was numbsuckingly stupid of him to be infatuated with communism – the elite’s pet creation – as a means of “liberating” the South American Peoples.

    He would have been one hell of a danger if he had implemented an interest-free currency system and other goodies. But in that case I do not think that he would have survived for longer than a month. That would have made him really dangerous instead of a minor nuisance that he was in reality.

    Real change can never come out of any strong-man, but out of the awakening of mankind to all the scams out there.

    All dictators out there are just nuisances – they want them gone of course, since they only like a serf as a head of state.

    Chavez was no serf to them – not like the current Chinese, US and EU leaders – but a dictator who may or may not have tried to do good choosing just a thoroughly ineffective way of resistence.

    • I don’t think so Bourchakoun: The struggle on the national levels is real: They really hate each other. It’s very likely the US establishment wanted to see him go, while the Bankers don’t care that their henchmen kill each other. It’s managed conflict, but the powerstruggles at the subtop level are real. That’s why the smoke and mirrors is so convincing.

    • Btw: it;s not only his horrible domestic policies. The real telltale is the Latin American Cooperation. That’s just 100% money power driven globalism…..

      • Bourchakoun permalink

        “Unification” of the Latin American People is nothing new – already Guevera tried that – as a countermeasure agains the overpowering west. Many people are duped by that.

        And spouting pseudo-feminism is no tell-tale sign either as any good dictator knows that you have to get the women for sure votes – Hitler, Stalin did the same. Women – as wonderful as they are – are unfortunately more prone to succumb to authority figures. Just look at the alternative media – it is absolutely dominated by men with the exception of the topic of vaccinations (their children get hurt there).

        Despite that you could be right of course – we simply have not sufficient info on that. I doubt it however since he opposed the NWO on so many fronts.

        • I’d rather say that the external enemy of the US is an ideal scapegoat to mess up national sovereignty. Just another dialectic. Is it really fair to compare Chavez to Hitler when it comes to women? Hitler explained women should produce men. Chavez explained women should hate men, become promiscuous, get pregnant early, and fed their already overblown (through matriarchy) egos.

          The basic message I try to convey, including the articles in the link, is that resisting the US empire is NOT the same as resisting the NWO. The NWO wants the US to go as the world’s main nation. The US conquered the world for them and they are done with it.

          • Bourchakoun permalink

            Totally agree on that – regardless whether Chavez was a 100% NWO-stooge, a NWO-part-time-follower or just an erring dictator that had to go.

          • Yeah, it’s always unclear how well they understand their own role. The way he got murdered is hardly different from other stooges like Saddam, or even Gadaffi.

  2. Henrique permalink

    Extremely naive of you to consider he might not know of the Big picture. He was, after all, a cherished member of the São Paulo Forum, the alliance of Latin socialists to unify the whole continent into a Union of Socialist Republics. And besides, a tremendous enthusiast of the alternative to FTAA ( Free Trade Area of the Americas ), the new CELAC ( Community of Latin American and Caribbean States ). It all leads to the same goal – the creation of a new “bloc” in Latin America. Think of the Trilateral Comission ( which some say it’s composed by the elite of the CFR ); they want blocs, eventually three, to then join slowly and standardize in a global system. Alan Watt put up yesterday lots of articles on agreements being reached all over the world, it’s really overwhelming ( ). Here’s an interesting one about the con that “free trade” is
    And yes, women are really the fist target of any propaganda campaign, and that is not exclusive to dictatorships, as liberal capitalism explores feminine piety and sentimentalism to the maximum to push all kinds of ideologies and products. But THIS propaganda is different as Migchels pointed out, is simply throwing them against men, instead of simply pampering them for their influence over the men in the house. This new propaganda directed at women implies no “men in the house”.
    By the way, FARC, the romanticized drug-running operation of “Marxists gone rogue” in Colombia is also an esteemed member of the São Paulo Forum; and some say it’s a KGB ( FSR, or whatever the hell it’s called now- they change it’s name every fifteen years ) front; a good source it is Red Cocaine by Joseph Douglass.
    In my opinion, there is a free zone where you can move and befriend all kinds of ideologies ( they’re all created by the Money Power anyway, specially the “World-improving” ones ) and rhetorical styles, and that’s to provide the perfect smoke and mirrors, to occupy and burn out the minds of the masses with artificial dialectics and meaningless ( not to say time-wasting ) discussions imbued with emotion, shouting and tears. keep them arguing over pettiness, over sexual extravagances and other primitive topics, very base stuff, while at the top they prepare to devour the world. That’s what lower masons delve in, and they’re used to keep people preoccupied thinking about shit. That’s why when leaders see the real thing at the top running it all and try to do something about it, they’re murdered.
    These people know that man’s mind work in a dialectical process, so they ALWAYS provide both sides of every matter. You create two opposing sides, then you build two sides inside those first two, and keep repeating it until you have a myriad of fronts, some pretty weird, mixing elements from everywhere; a descending spiral towards oblivion. While at the same time running the agenda full speed ahead. Most people will get entrapped and never see beyond the fronts. I think that’s all the Ancient Egyptian “Mysteries” are about, nothing more.

    • Great Henrique. Marcos (on Henry’s site) also pointed out the Sao Paolo connection. Thanks, I wasn’t aware of it. I’m in Europe and obviously I’m not quite as well versed in Latin American dynamics as you guys. I certainly agree with your comment.

    • Bourchakoun permalink

      Maybe you are right about Chavez – have not delved too much into his real doings. However it is possible that he went along with some points and opposed the NWO on others. Margret Thatcher was dropped by the Big Boys after her political career right after joining the higher echelon of real power, because she opposed them on further UK-conglomeration with the EU.

      At the very lest it seems that Chavez pissed them off with something, because his cancer is way too suspicious.

      Yeah – Alan Watt put up a lot of links currently on Free Trade – it seems that they are going into Steroid-mode. Free Trade is actually one of the biggest weapons of the money power – practically never helps the lower 90% – at it is always a step towards further unification. Something big is going on with the push to Free Trade – and thoroughly underreported in the big media.

      Drugs are run by government agencies – you would be surprised how many wealthy people at Wallstreet know about it. The US alone probably generates roughly 500 bio. $ per year from that nice little revenue stream. Of course CIA, MI6, KGB-FSB are effectively more or less one – everyone is getting their cut there. The secret services are reputed to be the money power’s enforcers – how could you defend yourself against that?

  3. J.M. permalink

    I’ m glad someone outside from the mainstream media acknowledged the real legacy of Hugo Chavéz and the implicit hopelessness of the Venezuelan people that after his death, still have no viable options at the ballot.

    However you are seriously wrong on something: a Latin American Union, at least a Great Colombia state, was not intrinsically an evil construct. The fact of the matter is that a federal solution encompassing several Hispanic nations would have been better for most nations of the region, instead of being condemned to be powerless and thus voiceless entities in the global scenario, run into the mud by idiotic but “democratically elected” despots, yes-men to the real powers that be.

    Unlike Europe, most Hispanic American nations are not real nations, not real homelands yet but nations in ‘progress (as I would call them),due to the fact of their recent and artificial creation (the independence movement as you hinted and anyone who has researched Hispanic-american history knows was a conspiracy run by the local overlords to seize complete control of these lands, hence the support many Amerindians and even blacks gave to the royalist forces in the independence wars once they realized what their real status would be in the new societiesread 4th class citizens, specially Amerindians and pure Blacks.).

    Thus many nations of our region, in time could become one or few big federal states, instead of a myriad of little, irrelevant and warlike nations and the bloodshed this development would cause in time. If there has been no bloodshed is because the international ‘powers have intervened and there is an “international law”, otherwise, we would be like Europe before the World Wars.

    P.S. The dismemberment of Gran Colombia was by no means a defeat for the banksters, if anything made things easier, good things (The Panamá Canal) and bad things (exploitation of undderdeveloped nation resources).

    • Hi J.M.
      Thanks. I understand what you’re saying. Fragmentation does risk weakness, I agree. Easy to play the smaller parts against each other.

      On the other hand: Bolivar was a clear mason and his legacy was power centralization, although he failed. Local warlords taking over after the greater entity falls apart surely is not pleasant or desirable. The idea that greater entities can better compete on the global scale is also often used to sell the EU.

      So the goal is not fragmentation and allowing local thugs taking over. Basically humanity is simply not ready to run itself properly. The fact is the masses probably get what they deserve. History has mainly been a lose/lose situation for the people.

      But I think it’s really fair to say the Money Power is always centralizing power at ever higher levels and seeing people do it is a sure tell tale about their true loyalties.

  4. Plato permalink

    Hi Anthony, You might be right about Chavez although he might be a truely independent idealist in the beginning. When you are in power it is difficult to stay independent from the more powerfull. So yes you may become a lower degree mason for PR reasons with the moneypower.

    The problem with many socialists, and I was a socialist myself for a while, is that they have a lack of knowledge about finance (as most people have).

    I am also not entirely sure about your opinion about Gaddafi. When he took power in the 60’s, he did it only with the power of his army, not with the support of anglo-american intelligence or something I thought. In those days the world was less globalised than today and who cares about Libya?

    I think that also Guavara was a truely independent idealist but partly brainwasted with Marxistic books instead of knowledge about independent money-systems. And he should have investigated his master Castro better Castro was indeed a moneypower stooge (son of a plantation holder and trained by the jesuits, Castro might be a serfardic jew the way.)

    Guevara was against ”american imperialism” which is in reality corporate imperialism (multinational monopolists) which is primarely runned by bankers and that it is runned by bankers is what he did not understood.

    • Hi Plato!

      Yes, you’re right: most of their people start out as idealists, but elbowing their way up will only succeed when they commit more and more to the agenda.

      And indeed: ignoring finance is THE main issue with socialism. That’s why the Money Power invented it and continues to morph it into modern variations. It just attacks the ‘bourgeoisie’ and ignores the vampires at the top of the food chain.

      Gaddafi is an interesting case. I certainly don’t dismiss him entirely in the article: he really did great things for the Libyans and he DID provide interest free money, which is huge of course. My main criticism is his African, gold based currency, which is highly suspect.

  5. moneylender permalink

    President Hugo Chavez: A 21st Century Renaissance Man – Prof. James Petras Global Research, March 15, 2013 Url of this article:

    • Yes, this kind of generalized hero worshiping is rife. People are blinded by his ‘anti-imperialism’, have difficulty seeing the agenda of supranational power centralization.

      But beyond the wonderful words there are also facts and these seem to speak for themselves.

    • Bourchakoun permalink – really? That site is rife with plenty of disinformation, sure – also some great deal of truth and basically no real alternatives to the current system except being anti-US-NATO. UN is fine with them mostly, Global Warming is real (according to most articles) and obviously Agenda 21 (though hardly mentioned) must be good too, though they mention sometimes Karl Denninger, but that is as far as they go. If you accept almost and any “alternative” sources and financing is actually really unclear for a site of that size – you may just as well be a bbc-blogging-site.

      That site is either childishly naive, completely diluted by its mainstream bloggers and disinformation agents or an outright disinformation site.

      Where else can you find out about the UN being “a truly democratic” organization. In comparison to that Alex Jones is a beacon of truth.

  6. I don’t particularly like many of his “marxist” policies but for god shake HE WAS NOT A DICTATOR.
    You like it or not, Venezuela’s people supported him. That’s just propaganda, like when Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonso was referred to as “the lord of the guerrilla” or something like that by mainstream western media.érez_Alfonso
    The military also supported Chavez when a CIA coup failed against him.
    I recommend you the documentary “South of the border” by Oliver Stone.
    The french documentary series “la saga del oro negro” (can’t find it in English) for history channel is very good too.

    Another thing I liked from Chavez was his involvement in local currencies, barter clubs and other complementary currency experiments. Of course a demurrage national currency would have been even better, but at least he supported other monetary models different from “what everybody does”.

    • I do not call Chavez a dictator Timon, nor do I consider him one.

      I didn’t realize he was into local currencies, have you got some material on that?

  7. asheen permalink

    On a point of clarity, Chavez was not a Marxist but a populist. While he did have avowed Marxists initially within the MVR coalition, they left him following the realization that he was, in Marxist terms, a Bonapartist.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Enough of the Putin Worship! | Real Currencies
  2. The BRICS Bank: Next Stop On The Road To World Currency | Real Currencies
  3. The BRICS Bank: Next Stop On The Road To World Currency | 2012 The Awakening

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *