by Michael Collins Piper, Empire Strikes Black
Hugo Chavez—the colorful Venezuelan strongman, a popular figure throughout Latin America—is dead.
Although the controlled media contrived to mislead Americans into perceiving Chavez as “anti-American,” the truth is that the bombastic South American icon was actually a forthright nationalist critic of the internationalist and imperialist forces often referred to as the New World Order.
Like many who oppose the privately-owned Federal Reserve money monopoly which operates un-Constitutionally on American soil, Chavez was a critic of rampant global super-capitalism, which Chavez called “the demon.”
There is no question Chavez knew the source of his high-powered opposition. In 2000, announcing a trip to Iraq, Chavez taunted his critics, remarking: “Imagine what the Pharisees will say when they see me with Saddam Hussein.” On another occasion he asserted: “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.”
All of this is something of which even otherwise well-informed American patriots are unaware.
Should there be any doubt Chavez was perceived as a roadblock in the way of the New World Order, consider the warnings issued by David Rothkopf, front man at Kissinger Associates, the secretive pressure group of Henry Kissinger, one of the foremost advocates of the New World Order.
In Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making—which acknowledges the influence of such New World Order institutions as Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations—Rothkopf spoke approvingly of what he called the new global “superclass” (that is, the New World Order elite) and said that, in his words, the “political fault line” for the 21st century is the battle of “Globalists vs. Nationalists,” that an emerging “global network of antiglobalists” stood opposed to the “superclass.” He wrote:
At the core of the “anti-network” is a small group of leaders, linked by many shared characteristics and attitudes though they come from widely different regions of the world. They might be characterized as “nationalists,” or opponents of the United States, or critics of Western-led globalization. . . .
In their view, globalization is old Western imperialism dressed up in new clothes, and they are reacting to it much as they were trained to react to such incursions. . . . Whether you characterize it as nationalist vs. internationalist, populist vs. globalist, or anti-neo- imperialist vs. pro-American globalization, the fact is that the battle lines are drawn.
Specifically naming three figures among that “small group of leaders” challenging the New World Order as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Chavez, Rothkopf candidly confirmed the primary underlying conflict in our world today is—as it has always been—the fight by nationalists worldwide to preserve their nations’ sovereignty in the face of the concerted drive by cosmopolitan internationalists to erect a global imperium. Rothkopf’s admissions were a clear sign the New World Order schemers recognized serious forces were aligning against them.
Unfortunately, groups such as the John Birch Society parroted the New World Order crowd and the war-mongering pro-Israel neo-conservatives by attacking nationalists such as Ahmadinejad, Putin, and Chavez.
Considering all of this—quite naturally—from the time Chavez was elected president of Venezuela in 1999, the tightly-knit interlocking network of Rothschild dynasty-linked plutocratic families and Federal Reserve-connected financial interests who dominate the American military-industrial-media complex never spared any fervor in denouncing Chavez at any opportunity.
That international Zionism and the interwoven forces of the New World Order were disturbed about Chavez was (at first) largely kept under wraps. Zionist hatred of Chavez was confined to small-circulation—but nonetheless influential—journals read almost exclusively by supporters of Israel and in elitist circles.
For propaganda purposes designed to manipulate more broad-ranging concerns of freedom-loving Americans, the media regularly stoked up the theme Chavez was a “socialist” or a “communist” under the thumb of Fidel Castro.
That Chavez was friendly toward Castro as virtually all Latin American leaders—even “conservatives”—have been (not to mention leaders worldwide)—was hardly “proof” Chavez was a communist.
Even The New York Review of Books admitted on Oct. 6, 2005 that “a great many businessmen have prospered under [Chavez’s] rule, and he has made it clear he sees a significant role for the private sector and, most particularly, for foreign investment.” So Chavez was no “communist”—media lies notwithstanding.
In truth, Chavez modeled himself after Simon Bolivar—liberator of the Andean colonies from the Spanish crown—who, in even traditional American history texts, was called “the George Washington of South America.”
The simmering secret war against Chavez took a new turn when, on the August 22, 2005 broadcast of his 700 Club, pro-Israel television evangelist Pat Robertson—suggesting Chavez was a new communist threat—openly called for the United States to assassinate Chavez, then emerging as a forceful critic of the global warmongering of the George W. Bush administration.
Most Americans would have never heard of Robertson’s provocation had it not been for the big media loudly publicizing the evangelist’s remarks and, as such, Chavez and his supporters correctly saw Robertson’s outburst as part of a carefully-crafted high-level scheme to direct American popular ire against Chavez and set the stage for military action against him.
In fact, the call for killing Chavez came just days after the Bush administration’s foremost voice of support in the media—the neo-conservative Weekly Standard—slammed Chavez claiming he was “a threat to more than just his own people,” a danger to the tiny but wealthy Jewish population in Venezuela, bemoaning the fact Venezuelan state television speculated Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad, may have been linked to the assassination of a local official in Venezuela.
Asserting “hostility to Jews” was “one of the hallmarks of the Venezuelan government,” the Standard cited a State Department “Report on Global Anti-Semitism” that purported to document, in the Standard’s words, “how openly anti-Semitic the Venezeulan government now is.”
Of particular concern was that one of Chavez’s closest advisors, the late Norberto Ceresole, was “infamous” for “conspiracy theories about Jewish plans to control the planet” and that Ceresole was a “holocaust denier”—that is, he questioned official accounts of World War II history, a “crime” punishable by imprisonment in many Western nations calling themselves “democracies,” and which, at the same time, hypocritically accused Chavez of suppressing freedom of expression in Venezeula.
Within a short time, though, Jewish opposition to Chavez went public in a big way. On Feb. 5, 2008—in a commentary in The Washington Post (a newspaper that most definitely directs opinion among movers and shakers in the nation’s capital)—Abe Foxman, chief of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, launched a full-force attack on Chavez. Headlined “Chavez’s Anti-Semitism,” Foxman’s inflammatory broadside alleged a “rising wave of anti-Semitism” in Venezuela traceable to Chavez.
Foxman charged Venezuelan officials and media were “rehashing the ancient canard about Jewish control, vilifying Jews and Israel as agents of imperialism, and adopting anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jewish financial influence,” and expressed concern Chavez was friendly to Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Syrian President al-Assad, among others the ADL called “a verifiable threat to Israel and world Jewry.”
Although Chavez is gone, other leaders in South America and worldwide—with the support of many good Americans—still carry on his fight against the New World Order.