Reinaldo labels Hugo Chávez as 100% idiot

247 – In Reinaldo Azevedo, a neoconservative blogger for Veja magazine, the nickname "dung beetle," given by Leonardo Boff on the day the journalist defined Oscar Niemeyer as "half genius, half idiot," stuck like a tattoo. Dissatisfied with the notoriety, Reinaldo now repeats the argument to maintain that Hugo Chávez was 100% idiot. Read below:

No! Chávez wasn't half genius and half idiot. He was one hundred percent idiot, in addition to leading a government infiltrated by terrorism and drug trafficking.

The death of Hugo Chávez reveals that we are living through rather dark times. The values ​​of democracy are in crisis. One only needs to read the news to confirm this. I've come to the conclusion that idiots and sympathizers of supposedly virtuous tyrannies are in control of some media outlets, even though they themselves vitally depend on freedom. Why am I writing this? Let's see.

The old leftist agenda—the socialist revolution—has been definitively retired. Over time, it has taken on a new, much more fragmented configuration. We live under the sign of reparations for so-called “historical injustices”: against the poor, against Black people, against Indigenous people, against women, against gay people, against quilombola communities, against nature… Take your pick. Every now and then a new “minority”—sociologically speaking—emerges, willing to impose its agenda as a precondition for universal justice. Obviously, I have nothing against justice, for goodness sake! Why shouldn't I also be as good a man as cyclists, for example? Of course I am! If someone speaks to me about good, beauty, and justice, I'm in, I'm with the cool kids.

If everyone wants a perfect world, I won't be left out of the party. The question is how all these reparations will be carried out within the framework of democracy, of a society governed by the rule of law, that respects individual rights. Governing with a dictatorship is easy; governing with democracy is the real problem.

I've grown tired of reading some dangerous arguments over the past two days. They basically consist of the tacit acceptance that the improvement in some social indicators in Venezuela—and there have been improvements—is linked to the "model" invented by Hugo Chávez. Unemployment, in fact, fell from 14,5% in 1999, when he came to power, to 8% last year. But it also reached 18% in 2003, in his fifth year in office. Inflation, on the other hand, was 29,9% in 1998, when he was first elected, and reached 33% last year. Its lowest rate was in 2001, at 12%. The HDI rose from 0,656 to 0,735 in 2011 and surpassed, for example, that of Brazil.

It's no secret that Chávez used the abundant oil money to implement a strong welfare program. And it is this welfare program that guarantees the enthusiastic support of the poorest for his government. It is also clear that the so-called traditional elites of Venezuela were among the most corrupt and socially insensitive in the world—which ultimately facilitates the emergence of leaders with their profile. This applies to Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador… But does the rapacity of these elites justify the Bolivarian model?

Chávez did, in fact, take initiatives that alleviated the suffering of the poorest. That's not up for debate. The question is why he needed a dictatorship. The question is why he needed to resort to a regime of force. These questions have no answer because the Bolivarian pantomime was simply unnecessary. Lula also tried to impose some exceptional measures in Brazil. He didn't succeed—not yet, at least. And nothing prevented the Workers' Party from carrying on its legend.

The present that corrodes the future.
Chávez transformed Venezuela into, if I may say so, a country of oil-based manoculture. Twenty-five percent of the world's oil reserves are there. As long as it remains a primary energy source—and it will be for a long time—it's clear that the country will have the money to maintain its welfare policies, even if it produces far less than it could. Note: these policies are not inherently bad. But what future do they point to when they become an end in themselves?

They point to disaster. Chávez destroyed what was considered cutting-edge agriculture in Venezuela, for example. The country no longer produces food. He expropriated foreign companies, drove away private capital, and turned millions of Venezuelans into state-dependent individuals. Without economic diversification—impossible under the Bolivarian regime—this will continue. Oil accounts for 50% of government revenue and constitutes almost 100% of export revenue. In the words of Venezuelan economist Moisés Naím to the Wall Street Journal: “Never has a Latin American leader lost so much money, spent resources so poorly, and used the power given to him so incorrectly.” Spot on!

The fools
No, gentlemen! Chávez's authoritarianism was not a kind of necessary evil to justify a good—namely, the reduction of poverty and the decrease of inequality. This is a delinquent judgment and is at the root, it must be said, of the cunning interpretations of the 54 years of the Cuban dictatorship. For decades, the supposed social well-being of Cuba served to conceal the crimes of the Castro brothers. At least one hundred thousand people died (17 shot; the rest trying to flee the island) under the complicit silence of the rest of the world so that that paradise could be built there…

But these are times—and here I return to the central point of this text—that favor the idea of ​​reparations at any cost. If Chávez succeeded the so-called "insensitive elites" of the past, then everything would be permitted to him, including the violation of the most basic foundations of democracy and, it's worth noting, of international law. The obvious isn't even asked: how would Venezuela be today if he hadn't destroyed the country's economy? The so-called social programs could still be in effect, right? Why not? Perhaps there would be fewer Venezuelans working for state agencies or dependent on official aid. Certainly, the people would be freer.

Chávez did indeed distribute some of the oil wealth through these programs, which he used to win over the electorate. But he stole, and for many years, the country's future, which will have to be rebuilt—starting with its institutions.

Exporter of "revolution" and importer of terror.
It is also worth remembering Chávez, the "exporter of the revolution." He interfered in Ecuador, Bolivia, and even Argentina. He sent a suitcase containing US$800 to help finance Cristina Kirchner's first election. He inspired the attempted coup in Honduras and later tried to orchestrate, with Brazil's help, a civil war in that country. This has been proven, he armed the FARC narcoterrorists in Colombia and became their privileged interlocutor. In Caracas, there is a square named after the group's founder: Manuel Marulanda. Note! When the colonel attempted a coup in Venezuela in 1992, the narcoterrorists sent him 100 pesos—approximately US$50 at the time. In power, the dictator transferred a staggering US$300 million to the criminals. This information was found on the laptop of the deceased terrorist Raúl Reyes.

Is that not enough? Chávez celebrated military and nuclear cooperation agreements with Iran, and Hezbollah, a terrorist movement based in Lebanon and a satellite of the country of the ayatollahs, established a base of operations in Venezuela.

The Venezuelan state's ties to drug trafficking are also more than evident. In April of last year, Judge Eladio Aponte Aponte, of the country's Supreme Court, fled to Costa Rica. He requested entry into the protection program offered by the US anti-drug agency to whistleblowers considered important. He confessed that, at the government's request, he acted to protect drug trafficking. No less than half of the cocaine entering the US originates in Venezuela. Read an excerpt from a report in O Globo, May 7, 2012.

[The judge] gave as an example a case involving a former Venezuelan military attaché in Brazil, Lieutenant Colonel Pedro José Maggino Belicchi. According to the judge-informant, Maggino Belicchi is part of a military network that for years has used barracks of the 4th Armored Division of the Venezuelan Army as logistical bases for transporting cocaine base and cocaine exported by factions of the FARC, the Colombian narco-guerrilla group. The lieutenant colonel was caught red-handed on November 16, 2005, along with other military personnel, transporting 2,2 tons of cocaine in an Army truck (license plate EJ-746).
As president of the Supreme Court, Aponte Aponte says he received and heeded appeals from the Presidency of the Republic, the Ministry of Defense, and the Venezuelan drug enforcement agency to release Magino Belicchi and the other military personnel involved. This is part of Venezuelan judicial routine, he stated in an interview with Costa Rican television.
General Henry de Jesus Rangel Silva, cited by the judge-turned-informant, commanded the Fourth Armored Division, one of the most important units of the Venezuelan Army. Since 2008, he has been on the official list of drug traffickers linked to the Colombian FARC, and his assets and bank accounts are frozen by the United States government. In January, President Hugo Chávez decided to publicly decorate him and promote him to the position of Minister of Defense. "Rangel Silva is under attack," Chávez justified in a speech.
(...)

Closing
Some social indicators in Venezuela have indeed improved. That's the obligation of governments. The same has happened in countries that have stayed on the democratic path. The dictatorship, therefore, was a choice made by Chávez and his cronies, independent of this or that measure.

The utter idiot leaves a country with its institutions in tatters, its economy ailing, inflation around 30%, and infiltrated by terrorism and drug trafficking. The man who dies, I reiterate, deserves pity, like anyone else. The dictator, however, should never have existed. Latin America is healthier now. Now it is necessary to dislodge, through democratic means and political struggle, the criminal clique that is in power.