Lula shows his true red colors

Caracas Gringo has friends and professional colleagues, in the US and Latin America, who speak admiringly of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva as a “moderate…socialist & democrat.”

The majority of the crowd who believes Lula is a moderate – say, 99.9% – are, respectfully, naïve and perhaps willfullyignorant of Lula’s history.

“But Lula is not like Chavez,” Caracas Gringo hears frequently. “Gringo, you’re just too right-wing.”

A leopard can, indeed, change its spots. Old dogs can learn new tricks. Radicals do moderate and grow mellower with age and eventually, even, come in from the cold.

In a word, crap!

Lula is not like Chavez because Brazil’s institutions – private and public, political and military – would have found a way to topple Lula – democratically or not – had he indulged his natural, and most radical Marxist instincts.

However, Lula occasionally shows his true colors, as he did it again this week while UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown was in Brasilia as part of a five-day tour of Europe, the US and South America in preparation for the G20 summit to take place in London on 2 April (i.e. Brown was globetrotting to escape more public opprobrium at home for his witless stewardship of the UK economy).

Speaking in Brasília at a joint press conference with Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, Lula told reporters:

“This crisis was caused by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing. …I do not know any black or indigenous bankers so I can only say [it is wrong] that this part of mankind which is victimized more than any other should pay for the crisis.”

What a surprise! Lula blames the global crisis on “irrational…white people with blue eyes.” Was he speaking of white bankers only, or ALL white people? But forget the semantics: Lula’s remark was racist and racially offensive, and deliberately so – else why raise the point at all during a press conference?

Perhaps Lula was tipsy again; after all, Lula’s love affair with alcohol and his tendency to over-indulge his thirst is legendary. But the possibility that Brazil’s president was boozed up doesn’t excuse or explain the stupidity of his racially-charged accusation.

But when viewed from an ideological prism, Lula’s deliberate racism makes a lot of sense.

Lula first and foremost is, and always has been, a believer in radical Marxist revolution. The semantics don’t matter – socialist, progressive, populist, a man of the poor people, whatever. He’s a radical communist.

If Lula could have gotten away with leading a radical Marxist/populist revolution in Brazil, he would have done so without a second’s thought when first elected in October 2002.

Lula’s life and political career as a poor child of impoverished slum dwellers who has only a fifth-grade education and was a sheet-metal worker/radical Marxist labor activist is amply documented.

Lula is a co-founder, with his decades-old buddy Fidel Castro, of the Sao Paulo Forum, where Latin America’s communist parties and militant groups figured out how to gain power democratically in order to then advance their Marxist/revolutionary goals.

And the forum’s prescriptions proved to be very effective, way more so than the political correct idiocy of the Washington Consensus that wasted almost 20 years arguing that new open economic models could be imposed from abroad/above without any underlying transformation in the institutions and cultures of the Latin American societies in question.

There are differences of degree between Latin American countries now governed by so-called “socialists,” but ultimately the gang is all rowing together in the same direction: a vastly expanded state, more state control over all productive processes, creeping (or violent) restrictions on private property and individual rights.

Some of the region’s leftist regimes are marching further left more rapidly than others, but the process is ongoing in all these countries – overtly through the political process, and covertly through the efforts of Chavez-funded initiatives like the Caracas-based the Congreso Autoctono de los Pueblos Bolivarianos.

This entity, which hosts events attended by Cuban political strategists, FARC militants and other armed communist radicals, has essentially replaced the Sao Paulo Forum as the venue through which the region’s most radical communist groups plot revolution. (Also, China reportedly has “neutral observers” in this entity.) For example, the Casas del Alba political indoctrination initiative Caracas/La Paz have developed in Peru’s indigenous southwestern Andes region was initially proposed/discussed in this Bolivarian People’s Congress.

Racism, explicitly racism directed against white people, is part of the long-term Marxist revolutionary strategy to destabilize the United States and push the US out of Latin America completely. Of course, this would open even more widely the opportunities of dictatorial and/or communist thug regimes to take control of the region’s natural resources and forge political alliances with corrupt regimes in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, etc.

Lula’s chief Latin American foreign policy adviser, Marco Aurelio Garcia, is a radical communist who in his youth was a guerrilla, and has longtime ties to Havana, communist Moscow and Beijing.

Lula also has been Latin America’s foremost presidential apologist for the worst excesses of President Hugo Chavez’s thug regime. No one can dispute that Venezuela is a democracy, Lula declared yesterday. Again, crap!

Venezuela is an increasingly dictatorial, militarized, intolerant one-man regime where 114,000 people have been murdered in the past decade and over 2 million more injured by violent criminals.

Chavez controls the presidency, National Assembly, Supreme Court (and the rest of the judiciary), the Office of the Attorney General, the National Electoral Council (CNE), and over three-quarters of the news media.

Bolivarian Venezuela is a country where the private property rights and contractual rights of local and foreign private investors are routinely violated on a daily basis.

The 15 February referendum was only about whether or not Chavez should be allowed to seek re-election indefinitely.

But less than two months after his referendum “win” (which we insist was rigged as all of Venezuela’s elections since the 2004 presidential recall referendum have been rigged), Chavez is illegally and unconstitutionally transforming Venezuela into a militarized Marxist state.

And what is Lula doing? Declaring to the world that the Chavez regime is democratic.

Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama has not even started to name his Latin America team yet, while Washington’s mainly brain-deads think tanks are offering “new policy proposals” that continue to hew closely to 20-year-old paradigms which make no sense in today’s world. (We’ll have a post up shortly on the brain-deads think tanks.)

About Caracas Gringo

Representing less than 0.00000000001515152% of the world population as of 31 December 2011.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Lula shows his true red colors

  1. Martin says:

    Corruption is another issue altogether. there’s a good case to be made that all politicians are corrupt to some degree, and certainly all Latin American politicians.


  2. Paula Tejando says:

    Lula is a fruitcake. He is a corrupt as everyone.


  3. Martin says:

    If what you say about Lula is all really true, then I would feel profoundly depressed, and believe that all of South America was well and truly lost to the forces of extremism. But all the evidence I have seen (and admittedly I’m no expert on Brazil) indicates to me that this is not the case. Lula has been a counterweight to Chavez (as he has to be) and has cultivated strong economic and diplomatic ties to the US. This was even the case with Bush, and we should expect it more with Obama, who is much closer to him politically. He may have failed to condemn Chavez enough for some, but at least he has not followed him to his more looney extremes, and has certainly kept his distance. I would say he has been pragmatic. The quote you give is certainly unfortunate, and racist (though he is hardly indigenous himself!) but not typical in my experience of him. Also, unlike Chavez, Morales, Correa, and one or two others, he’s not pulling the constitution revamp game as a backdoor means of becoming dictator for life.
    I sincerely hope that I am right and you are wrong. I repeat, if Brazil is lost, then certainly the whole of South America is too.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s