“Eventually responsible leadership for a restive mass of some 180,000,000 Latin Americans will evolve. Already the seeds of revolt against Jewish-American economic domination have been sown. Witness Cuba.” — Francis Parker Yockey, 1961.
The vultures have been circling around Venezuela for over a decade, waiting for an opportunity to swoop down upon a nation that had stubbornly maintained its sovereignty under the inspiring leadership of a latter-day Perón, Hugo Chávez. To bogus “conservatives” Chávez was just another Marxist tyrant, a designation that is applied to anyone remotely critical of US global hegemony, whether politically, economically, morally or culturally. However, he was something other than just another “Third World’ dictator; like Perón he was committed to an Idea, and while that might be described as from the “Left,” it was far from Marxist. Rightist political realists such as Yockey, his colleague H. Keith Thompson, and the Belgian Jean Thiriart, would have readily seen greatness in Chávez, around which an anti-globalist axis was being forged in Latin America and further afield.
Yockey, in collaboration with H. Keith Thompson, penned his last essay that acknowledged the importance of the “the formation of nationalist, neutralist regimes” in the Third World, and had no compunction about describing certain darkies in his own time as “brilliant statesmen,” in which he included for example Nkrumah of Ghana. “These personalities,” they wrote, “embody an Idea, none are out for money or publicity. They live simply, work for and live for their ideas. One such man, in a position of leadership, is a world-historical force.” Can anyone really object that if Yockey were alive to day he would have seen in Chávez anything other than a “brilliant statesman,” and a “world-historical force,” and might very well have joined Ceresole in going to Bolivarian Venezuela, as he went to Nasser’s Egypt?
Chávez, who had reached the rank of lieutenant-colonel, had participated in a failed coup in 1992, was jailed and then pardoned in 1994. He had spent his time formulating his political ideas, and was a student of history. The Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement–200 (MBR–200) had been formed by radical army officers. As the name indicated, they honoured Simon Bolivar, not Karl Marx, and they had a wider vision for Latin America. Despite the opposition parties combining against him, Chávez won the presidency in 1998 with 56% of the vote.
The name of the state was changed to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
Resisting Culture Distortion
While it is a great myth to regard the USA as instinctively opposed to any regime that is “Leftist,” the Chávez regime was certainly a significant bugbear to the US regime. Like Perón, Chávez was no run-of-the-mill Marxist. The alarming direction of Bolivarian Venezuela soon became apparent to the “regime of the culture distorter” when Chávez declared a Kulturkampf exactly at them: the “culture distorters.” The “spiritual syphilis of Hollywood,” to use a Yockeyan term is a primary means of subverting a nation and dragging it down into the globalist quagmire headed up by the USA. Asked why he was launching a film industry in Latin America intended to rival Hollywood, Chávez explained: “It’s a Hollywood dictatorship. They inoculate us with messages that don’t belong to our traditions.”
A film studio was opened by Chávez in 2006 with funding of $11,000,000. It produced films about Latin American history. The first was “a series about Francisco de Miranda, who fought for Venezuela’s independence from Spain in the 19th century and one of Mr Chávez’s heroes.”
Chávez was fully cognizant of the forces at work behind the US regime and globalization, and its Hollywood arm. Hence the opposition he encountered from Jewish sources and his outspoken condemnation of their influence. In 2006 no less than the Simon Wiesenthal Center accused Chávez of making “anti-Semitic” remarks and — laugh now — “demanded an apology.” In his 2005 Christmas Eve speech Chávez said that “minorities, descendants of those who crucified Christ … have grabbed all the wealth of the world for themselves . . . ‘Our center strongly condemns his anti-Semitic declarations. This insult to universal humanitarian values demands an immediate retraction and public apology.’”
The center’s International Relations Director Shimon Samuels and its Latin America representative Sergio Widder also sent a letter to Chávez demanding an apology, according to the center’s statement.
They said they would call on the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay to suspend Venezuela’s entry into the Mercosur trade bloc until Chávez apologizes.
The center said ‘the reactionary and medieval rhetoric’ echoed that of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who last month expressed doubt the extermination of Jews by the Nazis known as Holocaust occurred and suggested the Jewish state be moved to Europe.
Chávez, a vocal critic of Washington, has recently been fostering ties with Iran as he builds political and trade alliances as an alternative to U.S. influence.
In November 2012 the Wiesenthal Center lambasted Bolivarian Venezuela again because of violence directed against a synagogue in Caracas, when “an enraged mob chanted ‘Jews are murderers, damn Jews, stop killing innocent people’, anti-Israeli slogans, and launching firecrackers.” SWC Director for International Relations, Dr. Shimon Samuels, in keeping with a tendency for philo-Semites to exaggerate a tad, compared the incident to Nazi Germany and accused the Chávez Government of tolerating the acts, a previous incident having occurred in 2009:
Anti-Semitic incidents in Chávez’ Venezuela were already labeled as human rights abuses by the OAS’ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The current Maripérez Synagogue behooves the Organization of American States to intervene in ensuring a full investigation and prosecution of those responsible.
An Alternative to the “New World Order”
Clearly Chávez was regarded as an enemy of World Zionism and of World Jewry, alongside his ally, Iranian President, Ahmadinejad. In particular, Chávez had a grander vision that embraced not only the whole of Latin America but also the world. In opposing the USA and globalization Chávez countered with an alternative that accorded with a growing body of political and academic opinion in Russia, based on “Eurasianism” and the “Fourth Political Theory,” the most well-known exponent of this in Russia being Professor Alexander Dugin of the Center for Conservative Studies, Moscow State University. The theory is broadly advocated by President Putin, and Chávez sought a close relationship with Russia as the axis for a global reorganization based on geopolitical blocs and alliances or what Dugin calls “vectors.”
For Chávez’s part he advocated a Latin American bloc or “vector,” in Dugin’s terms, which was the foreign policy initiative of his “Bolivarian Revolution.” This had indeed brought the alignment of other Latin American states into “The Bolivarian Alternative for the People of Our America.” I have describe this briefly elsewhere:
A Latin American bloc is emerging around Venezuela. Combined, a Latin American bloc will have immense resources. A “Bolivarian” revolution is taking place throughout Latin America under the inspiration of Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. This Latin American bloc is forming in defiance of North American hegemonic ambitions, and was launched as “The Bolivarian Alternative for the People of Our America” (ALBA) in 2004 by Venezuela and Cuba as an alternative to the US—backed “Free Trade Area of the Americas.” By June 2009, ALBA had grown to nine member states, and the name was changed to the “Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America.” A Latin American bloc will seek alignment with Russia to counter US pressure, and Venezuela is already doing so.
Chávez seems to have been informed by the emerging current in Russian geopolitical thinking and endorsed a “multipolar” world in which the Bolivarian bloc would play its part aligned with Russia. He stated early in his presidency that this would not be “the new American century” but one of various power blocs. It reflects the grand geopolitical thinking of Haushofer, and post-War the ideas of Thiriart and Mosley, the latter also including what he had seen during the 1950s as the emergence of “syndicalism” in Latin America (particularly under Perón) as the foundation of a Latin bloc that could be aligned with Europe.
Chávez was well versed in political ideology and the history of political ideas, and quoted a variety of intellectual sources in his articles and TV talks. He was no dumb Spic as some “Rightists” would have it, on the basis of one’s skin shade. He wrote of his geopolitical vision:
I want to resume what I said in the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia: Today we can say that the world has stopped being unipolar. But there is not a bipolar world, nor are there clear signs of the creation of four or five great poles of world power. It is clear, for instance, that the organization of Our America in one single political bloc is not in the immediate horizon: It will not come true in the short term. But the same happens in Africa, Asia and Europe.
What we do can currently see is a number of growing geopolitical cores on the map of a world that we could now call the New World. It is a multipolar world as the transition to multipolarity.
The acceleration towards the transition to multipolarity will depend on the political clearness, will and decision made by the countries in each core. …
It will be difficult for them to silence the multiple chants sung by multiple nations, which, face with the hegemonic globalization imposed by capitalism, have started to build counter-hegemonic globalizations. Here I use the terms of Portuguese Professor and Intellectual Boaventura de Sousa Santos when, in his book Epistemologies of the South, he proposes us to think about a new multinational democratic movement. In this sense, I felt, with the same spirit among the fraternal peoples of Libya, Algeria, Syria, Iran, Turkmenistan, Belarus, Russia and Spain, that isolated efforts are not enough to fight the world crisis.
In the same article, Chávez spoke of the plight of the Palestinians, and of the “war on terrorism” that was being used to impose globalization, “which has allowed the empire to run over peoples and sovereignties with impunity.”
In 2010 Chávez visited Iran where loyalty between the two nations was pledged, and joint oil and other agreements were ratified. It was a pact that greatly worried Israel and the USA. The visit to Iran was part of a tour of numerous states, where he promoted the idea of a “multipolar world,” referred to in his article above.
That year also Putin visited Venezuela to sign an energy accord. Chávez, who visited Russia many times, stated of the Putin visit: “We’re forging a new multipolar world and Russia plays a big part in that process.”
Chávez: “I am really a Perónist”
Chávez, I feel, is the first Latin American leader to fill the shoes of the great Juan Perón. More than similarity in origins and style, both Perón and Chávez had a common adviser in Norberto Ceresole. In a 2008 meeting with Argentine President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, Chávez cited a speech by Juan Perón, and said: “I am really Perónist. I identify this man and this thought who asked that our countries are no longer factories of imperialism.”
Norberto Ceresole has been described as both a communist, because of his association with Chile’s Allende, and with Cuba, and as a “neo-Fascist” (because he was a “neo-Fascist”). The communist label comes about through the cerebral retardation that afflicts the “Right,” particularly in the USA. (I recall years ago hearing a GI solemnly state that he was going to Iraq to “fight Communism”). Quite a lot has been written about Ceresole as Chávez’s “Rasputin,” as someone whose influence gave the varied but aligned forces of evil the nervous jitters.
Ceresole (1943–2003), a political scientist and sociologist, was born in Argentina, studied in Germany, France, and Italy, and began his career as a political adviser with the Leftist regime of Juan Velasco Alvarado, after the coup in Peru in 1968. During the 1970s he was a leader of the Montoneros, who had fought for the return of the exiled Juan Perón, and went into exile in Spain in 1976, after the overthrow of Isabel Perón. Ceresole became the main spokesman for Perónism and was particularly influential among military officers throughout Latin America. He also promoted a Latin American alliance with the USSR.
While this would be seen by retarded elements of the “Right” as evidence of Communism, from the time of Yockey, and even during the time of Spengler, advanced Rightist thinkers were seeing the USSR as developing in altogether a different direction, and during Ceresole’s own time such an alliance was certainly being advocated also by Jean Thiriart and even by old veterans such as Maj. General Otto Remer, who never stopped advocating an alliance with Russia.
Ceresole became a member of the Institute of Latin American Studies of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and maintained contact with Cuban and Arab officials; again something that Yockey also did on both counts. After a 1987 revolt he returned to Argentina to advise Aldo Rico and other officers, whose movement later merged with the Perónistas. In 1994, through military contact, Ceresole met Chávez.
In 1995 Ceresole was deported from Venezuela because of his links with the Chávez group. With Chávez’s election in 1998 Ceresole returned, after having published a book in praise of Chávez, Caudillo, Ejército, Pueblo: la Venezuela del Comandante Chávez, in 1999.
Chávez had already mentioned his ideological debt to Ceresole in regard to geopolitics, writing in 1998 in Habla el Comandante that he “was reconsidering the ideas of Norberto Ceresole, in his works and studies, where he planned a project of physical integration in Latin America . . . this will be a project which will integrate the Continent along Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina and their ramifications.” Despite pressures from inside the regime that prompted Ceresole to leave Venezuela in 1999, his influence on the regime was lasting and he stated: “I am profoundly proud, for example, that the Venezuelan system of military intelligence was restructured following the strategic guidelines that I proposed at the time.”
Although there have been suggestions that Ceresole was repudiated by Chávez, this is not the case, and the Commandante stated in one of his broadcasts in 2006 that Ceresole was a “great friend”, and “an intellectual deserving great respect.” He recalled their meeting in 1995 where geopolitical strategy was discussed.
Ceresole returned to Argentina and continued advising the Perónistas until his death in 2003. Here he established the Perónista Institute of Education and Training Policy.
Cersole has been “accused” of being a “Holocaust denier” and an “anti-Semite,” and indeed he wrote books on both subjects, including: Terrorismo fundamentalista judío, nuevos escenarios de conflictos (Madrid: Libertarias, 1996); El Nacional-judaísmo: un mesianismo post-sionista, con prólogo de Roger Garaudy (Madrid: Libertarias, 1997); España y los judíos, Expulsión, Inquisición, Holocausto, 1492–1997 (Madrid: Amanecer, 1997); and La cuestión judía en la América del Sur (2003), while also writing on political nationalism and geopolitics. One of his books is entitled Perónism: Theory and History of National Socialism, the latter term being what Perón himself used to describe his doctrine of Justicialism.
That old war-horse of Jewish-Marxism, The Jewish Daily Forward, lamented of Chávez:
Anti-Semitism is on the rise in the Hispanic world. At its heart is Chávez’s anti-Zionism, which, of course, isn’t new. Nor is the Venezuelan president’s ire directly only at the Israeli state. His anti-Zionism is just one manifestation of his anti-Semitism. Famously, in a Christmas 2005 declaration, Chávez announced that “The world has enough for everybody, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people that crucified Christ, and of those that expelled Bolívar from here and in their own way crucified him . . . have taken control of the riches of the world.” Like his ally Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran, Chávez portrays Israel as a genocidal state that survives only because a cabal of wealthy Jews in the United States, through the media, controls the world’s public opinion.
After commenting on the dwindling of the Venezuelan Jewish community and anti-Zionist actions, Forward describes Chávez’s advisor:
To understand the roots of Chávezs’ animosity toward both Israel and the Jewish people, it is essential to follow the path of one of his close allies and confidants, Norberto Rafael Ceresole. Creosole’s potent mix of nationalism, populism, and anti-Semitism has provided the Venezuelan president with a convenient way to unite the disenfranchised poor under a common enemy. . . .
. . . Rather than a Cold-War ideologue supporting, depending on the occasion, the extreme left and the ultra-right, Ceresole may best be defined as a populist inspired by Juan Domingo Perón, Ceresole’s all-time hero (he spent time with the deposed Perón in Madrid). One of his central theses, if one is to be distilled from his almost three dozen books, is that the only redeeming institution in Latin America capable of bringing the region out of its “somnambulist status” is the army.
Ceresole, states The Forward, was thoroughly anti-Marxist, despite his support for “Leftist” causes as well as those on the Right, seeing Marxism as alien to Latin America, and was able – like Yockey, it can be added – to cultivate contacts in both the USSR and Cuba, despite his anti-Communism. The Forward quotes Ceresole as warmly remembering his first meeting with Chávez in 1994 just as Chávez recalled more recently and just as warmly, his meeting with Ceresole:
When I met Chávez I felt a revelation, that is, I saw a character that somehow I had imagined. . . . I had imagined [him] as a possibility. I had a negative experience with some Argentine military and when I saw Chávez it was, frankly, like a blow of fresh air. I immediately understood his lefty-wing line, which I didn’t like, and therein emerged the fraternal struggle between Chávez and Ceresole.
The Forward comments that despite Ceresole being pushed to leave Venezuela by the Vice President in 1999, “Though Ceresole did leave Venezuela, he remained close to Chávez until his death.” The influence certainly endured through Ceresole’s ideas on geopolitics, his opposition to Zionism and the influences of Judaism, and his conception of a civil-military state. In a 2000 interview, states The Forward, Ceresole
said that Chávez was eager to comprehend the role of a technologically-advanced army in the implementation of an equitable society and he and Ceresole discussed these ideas frequently. He explained how he told Chávez that all dissidence needed to be abolished in Venezuela in order to prevent a civil war. And he stated that Jews were foreign agents intended on perpetuating a false myth of the past. . . .
. . . In 1999, Ceresole released a book, Caudillo, Ejército, Pueblo: La Venezuela del Comandante Chávez (Caudillo, Army, People: Venezuela under Comandante Chávez), emphasizing Chávez’s promise as a panacea to the country’s ills. With this book, he won the heart of Chavismo. The title’s triptych quickly became the unofficial motto of the Chavista revolution.
Such great men that occasionally are produced by history and then in turn shape history, leave a catastrophic void when they die. Often their long labors and great sacrifices are undone if they are unable to bequeath what they create to someone of similar greatness. Chávez always insisted that this is not the case with Venezuela. He did not believe that is centered on his personality. Certainly we can expect to see the globalists, Zionists, and their Venezuelan collaborators looking for an opening to strike and bring Venezuela back to the fold of the “new world order.”
Venezuela has, since the rise of Chávez, been marked as one of those states in need of one of those “spontaneous color revolutions” of the type that has brought so many states back into the fold of international capital. One of the most obvious places to consult if one wishes to know what states are targeted for destruction by international capital is its revolutionary arm, the post-Trotskyite National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is assiduous at keeping an updated hit-list, and in boasting of its work for the global democratic revolution. Hence under Venezuela, NED lists its contributions to sundry subversive projects:
Center for International Private Enterprise, $376, 765 to promote free-market economics among Venezuelan businessmen and workers. $180,000 on “accountability,” for the purpose of interfering with Venezuela’s internal politics; $777,609 on “Civic Education,” that is, programs specifically targeting youth for subversion and manipulation. $117,920 on “Freedom of Information” aimed at manipulating journalists. $65,000 on “Human Rights” to fund a programme to use “Afro-descendants in public institutions,” and to indoctrinate policemen. $39,300 to “strengthen political institutions,’ again targeting police officials, and community leaders. $220, 417 for “strengthening political institutions,” that is, interfering with the electoral process, and manipulating youth as a voting bloc.
Given that the NED has followed precisely the same procedures and funding strategies for all other states in which they have fomented or attempted to foment, “color revolutions,” the aim of toppling the Bolivarian regime is obvious enough, and outright interference has caused the NED to be kicked out of Russia and Iran.
In 2010, Chávez identified Venezuelan journalists being paid by the NED to agitate against the state. It is an example of what the NED euphemistically refers to in its funding as “freedom of information.” In 2010, a US journalist found that the US State Department was channelling funds to Latin American journalists in Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, via fronts such as the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and the Pan American Development Foundation. He wrote of documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that:
Thus far, only documents pertaining to Venezuela have been released. They reveal that the PADF, collaborating with Venezuelan NGOs associated with the country’s political opposition, has been supplied with at least $700,000 to give out journalism grants and sponsor journalism education programs. Until now, the State Department has hidden its role in funding the Venezuelan news media, one of the opposition’s most powerful weapons against President Hugo Chávez and his Bolivarian movement. . . .
. . . Before 2007, the largest funder of U.S. “democracy promotion” activities in Venezuela was not the State Department but the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), together with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). But in 2005, these organizations’ underhanded funding was exposed by Venezuelan American attorney Eva Golinger in a series of articles, books, and lectures. . . . After the USAID and NED covers were blown wide open—forcing USAID’s main intermediary, Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), a Maryland–based contractor, to close its office in Caracas—the U.S. government apparently sought new funding channels, one of which the PADF appears to have provided.
. . . PADF proposes targeting not only universities in the capital city of Caracas, but also regional ones in “the Andes, Center East, Zulia and the Western region of the country.” In each region, “the local partners will sign agreements with academic institutions that teach social communications.” The revelations of U.S. funding of Venezuelan journalism comes on the heels of a report released in May by the center-right European think tank FRIDE, which found that since 2002 the United States has spent an estimated $3 million to $6 million every year “on small projects with political parties and NGOs” in Venezuela, with funds distributed through an alphabet soup of shifting and intertwined channels.
Venezuela stands at the crossroads. The Bolivarian regime provides the nexus for the Latin American bloc that is forming in alliance with Russia and Iran against the “new world order.” Its demise is crucial to the recapture of Latin America for the plutocrats and globalists and will delight World Zionism. Chávez was the pivotal figure in this new bloc. Will Venezuela produce another great leader, or will another arise from elsewhere in Latin America? Or will the region revert to colonial status behind the façade of “democracy,” “human rights,” and the market economy that is regarded as their necessary pillar?
 F. P. Yockey and H. Keith Thompson (1961), The World in Flames: An Estimate of the World Situation, VI; Yockey: Four Essays (New Jersey: Nordland Press, 1971).
 Cf. K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above (London: Arktos Media Ltd, 2011), inter alia.
 “Chávez Bid to Counter Hollywood,” June 4, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5046080.stm
 “Wiesenthal Center Slams Chávez Anti-Semitic Talk,” Reuters, January 4, 2006, http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200601051120 (The site is Vcrisis, dedicated to opposing Chávez).
 “Wiesenthal Center Slams Venezuelan Authorities on Mob Violence against Caracas Synagogue: Chávez’ Proactive Support for Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran Conciously [sic] Incites Against Jews Everywhere,” SWC, November 24, 2012, http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=12506007#.UTerUDcr3T4
 K. R. Bolton, “An ANZAC-Indo-Russian Alliance? Geopolitical Alternatives for New Zealand and Australia,” India Quarterly: Journal of International Affairs, June 2010, vol. 66 no. 2 183-201, http://iqq.sagepub.com/content/66/2/183.abstract
 Susan Bryce, “Russia vs. the New World Order,” New Dawn, January-February 2001, p. 25.
 Hugo Chávez Frías, “Chávez Lines–the Multipolar World–The New World,” Latin American Herald Tribune, http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=13303&ArticleId=343985
 Anna Mahjar-Barducci, Gatestone Institute: International Policy Council, November 10, 2010, http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1653/chavez-visits-iran
 Daniel Cancel, “Putin Visits Venezuela for First Time to Sign Energy Accords With Chávez,” Bloomberg, April 3, 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-02/putin-visits-venezuela-to-sign-energy-defense-finance-deals-with-chavez.html
 “Chávez: I am really a Perónist,” lanacion.com, March 6, 2008, http://www.lanacion.com.ar/993340-chavez-yo-soy-peronista-de-verdad
 Cf. K. R. Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (London: Black House Publishing, 2012).
 Chávez broadcast, Aló Presidente #255, May 2006.
 Ilan Stavans, “Hugo Chávez’ Advisor: The Anti-Semitic Path of Norberto Ceresole,” Zeek (The Jewish Daily Forward), July 1, 2010, http://zeek.forward.com/articles/116835/
 National Endowment for Democracy, “Venezuela,” http://www.ned.org/where-we-work/latin-america-and-caribbean/venezuela
 Jermey Bigwood, “Buying Venezuela’s Press with US Tax Dollars,” NACLA, July 15, 2010, https://nacla.org/node/6663
A Critic Takes the Dissident Right Seriously
Remembering Francis Parker Yockey: September 18, 1917–June 16, 1960
Remembering H. Keith Thompson:
September 17, 1922–March 3, 2002
He Told the Truth, Mainly
David Duke’s Bottle of Red Pills
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 368 Martin Lichtmesz on Ethnopluralism
Introduction to Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe
Spengler, Yockey & Hodina rozhodnutí
Fondations du XXIème siècle: Le Siècle de 1914 de Dominique Venner