Related posts

16 thoughts on “Violence instead of healing”

  1. Every person on this planet has an ability to care for themselves (and their children or aged elders) if they are allowed to do so. Sometimes we act in harmony with others to meet our common gaols. Socialism, in all its forms, prevents this. The basic concept is alluring, but fundementally prohibits anyone from making a profit. The only thing I own is my time and how to use it, also my mind, to make plans (at this God would laugh as he/she have their own plans). I’m not doomed to my own thoughts, or so I believe.
    Venezuela is a most beautiful nation, along with its people, I have had the privalage to live in this country with my wife, who was born in Caracas, (I am Irish) for a number of years, and whom I love with all my heart. I see the state of corruption and criminal neglect of those who are the sworn up-holders of all that matters in the agreement.
    The agreement is the “Constitution”. All citizens made a contract between ‘themselves’ as to how they should be governed. The current government has refused to honor that agreement especially the Supreme Court as it should be seperated by law only and its constituonal mandate.
    The United Kingdom does not have a constitution but its behaviours are based on law – only law is relevant. It is an excelent model.
    “I think therefore I am” is not a good expression regarding sentience but better is “I think and do”.
    Dont cry for me Venezuela – I love you.

    God bless us all said Tiny Tim (Dickens).

    Like

  2. And we need to treat these poor, misguided souls with love and compassion. Kumbaya sessions would also help to rehabilitate them, so that they become non-violent, loving and productive people. Of course no jail, too harsh.
    Yeah, sure…

    Like

  3. It’s a gross generalization to say “chavistas are violent.” That sentence right there sums up why ya’ll have twenty to thirty more years of this on your hands. Half (or almost have) of the country is inherently “violent” according to you? I can’t take this blog seriously anymore.

    Like

    • Where are the police and military forces which are supposed to bring these gangs in line? Oh yes… they wear red shirts and so rarely raise a hand against those committing these violent acts. What else do you call a movement whose members abdicate their legal responsibility to protect lives and property?

      What about society in the deep south during the Jim Crow era? It completely failed to even bother investigating the murders of African Americans or civil rights activists. Is it unfair to say the south was inherently “racist” and complicit in the oppression of African Americans, or should the blame be restricted to the KKK and a few policemen, which actually carried the acts out? Was the civil rights act proof that the North needed “twenty to thirty more years” to learn to treat southerners with “respect” and to “stop lecturing them.”

      Like

      • The comment comparing Chavismo to the Jim Crow South is preposterous. Black people were systematically oppressed by an ideology that led some to violence. I don’t see the VZ opposition members undergoing any sort of systematic oppression, especially those abroad. Chavismp may also lead to violence, but a good way to convince those who are turned off by that violence is not to call them violent.

        Like

        • No analogy is perfect, but my point still stands. What do you call police officers who abdicate their legal responsibility to protect lives and property simply because the criminals wear red shirts? That is the same level of official violence as existed in the Jim Crow south or today against gay people in Russia. I never meant that every other facet was identical, just the official implicit endorsement of violence.*

          Of course you’re right that telling people the truth can actually push them further into denial, but that’s why I’m not a politician. I’m also not recommending that Capriles endorse that strategy, but this blog is not the PJ messaging blog.

          *Actually, with the Tascon list you can see that Chavismo desired segregated public services based on political orientation…

          Like

          • It would have been more correct to say, that there is a dominant thread of violent tendencies among Chavistas in order to avoid this silly argument.But violence has always been active part of Venezuelan culture.Violence is a part of all human cultures but it does not always get the upper hand in government.Has Venezuela always been a country to uphold the rule of law? Have people been equal in front of the law? If the answer is “no” then there has been violence in one form or another.

            Like

  4. Am I missing something? but in all fairness, previously there was a rhetorical question? in the question “chavistas are violent?” or is this a good example of trolling. My apologies otherwise.

    Like

  5. Chavistas are not born violent , nor are they intrinsically violent, they can become violent to the extent they are caught up in the cult and glamorization of violence and intransigence that is part of Chavista Discourse , Chavez was a megalomaniacal thug who found in the possesion and exercise of raw Power (and in its most melodramatic expresion as confrontation and violence) a justification for his ideological and personal self glorification . Many people drawn to chavismo find an inner thrill and narcicistic gratification in violence and confrontation , the insults threats and bellicose language that pepper their speech are in themselves forms of verbal violence , the forced expropriations, the political persecutions , the proud carrying and wielding of arms, the ennactment of laws that deprive people of their dignity and livelihood are also forms of violence . so the answer is that Chavismo values do foster the display and use of violence in its followers.

    Like

  6. “Chavistas are violent” is a bit of a provocation, though unfortunate in tossing in a whole bunch of people who aren’t violent with many others who are…

    What I do know is that the Chavista regime clearly protects its own violent fringe, to the point of putting them in uniform and into parliament where they beat up their opponents on the actual floor of the assembly. I know chavismo serially shields its violent nutters them from persecution, glorifies their actions and does this on a continuous, ongoing basis.

    Are chavistas violent? I dunno.

    Is chavismo violent? There’s no doubt whatsoever.

    Like

  7. Chavistas violent? Nah, how could they when after all Chavez preached Love & Piece? They are always victims of oppo violence and are just defending themselves. They say so and as the owners of all wisdom, it must be true.

    Like

  8. Remember Róger Lara Cordero, a PSUV deputy who was one of the military involved in the Massacre of Cantaura…it is mind boggling to hear Chavistas trying to associate opposition politicians with that massacre…and most of those oppo politicians were teenagers when Róger Cordero was killing the pals of the people who became his comrades.

    Like

  9. Chavismo in itself its a violent ideology (If we could call it an ideology) It was born out of violence, it feeds on violence and not only does it promote it amongst its followers, it actually rewards it. I mean how are we suppose to establish a dialog with a political movement that has already made it clear that even if they lose, they are not going to just simply hand over the reigns of government. Have we forgotten about that little… errr… Formality?

    Like

    • So true. You can say it feeds that violence with hatred, I could day envy too but that’s not a particular only from Chavismo. Hatred, yes, it is.

      Like

Comments are closed.