Bearing in mind that the dominant species of our planet consists of blemished human beings, one should always take into account the innumerable flaws which are unfortunately inherent to its very nature: the selfish pursuit of individual interests regardless of cost/consequences; the ability to disguise imperfections; the penchant to deceive others (attempting to portray personal gains as altruistic deeds); the proclivity towards lying and deceiving; the deplorable aptitude for injustice and cruelty.
Likewise, one should never forget that humanity’s historical record also contains abundant examples of acts of oppression, torture, harassment, and mass murder… Thus, I fail to grasp the underlying logic underpinning scholars, philosophers and idealists who consistently adhere and eulogize the so-called benefits of authoritarian political philosophies.
Undeniably, there is a number of social and political stratagems which, when examined strictly on a theoretical basis, are likely to immediately convey superior, admirable and altruistic qualities to most analysts operating without the benefit of additional data, namely, test results pertaining to realistic cases applied and conducted in acceptable and verifiable conditions.
On the other hand, many of these academic concepts are sometimes proven impractical or unrealistic when analyzed under certain conditions or when applied to specific scenarios, despite any potential and/or intrinsic theoretical values.
Given the above analysis, I must re-affirm my inability to comprehend the rationale preventing many intellectuals to consistently fail to extrapolate what the unavoidably distressing end results deriving from the introduction of any such altruistic, idealistic and authoritarian system would generate.
Therefore, by virtue of its ideologically dictated centralism along with its automatic pre-requisite to outlaw opposing viewpoints emerging from alternative segments of society, it is not conceivable that healthy, free and emotionally/materially content societies may ever materialize.
To be sure, because the imposition of massive censorship within all means of communication automatically sanctions any national and/or regional leader to deliberately conceal flaws, errors, and crimes which may fail to meet with his/her expectations, personal interests or ideological views, the society under consideration would be subjected to potential deception and manipulation.
Likewise, because any such leaders would be naturally exposed to any combination of the above-reference human flaws, the citizenry falling under their jurisdiction would be further vulnerable to whimsical caprice, eventual coercive measures, lack of privacy, along with random interpretation and/or application of their local laws.
Thus, in light of the unavoidable ability to suppress any type of information at will, along with the absence of the mechanisms that allow public scrutiny of a country’s political elite (by opposing factions), societies should always proceed with extreme caution when considering the adoption of Socialist political structures, in view of the potential costs/threat to its citizens in the long run.
Given the strength of the preceding arguments, I am astounded by the continued facility whereby certain groups/segments of (any) society to fall prey to astute, manipulative tactics by deceitful, power-hungry hypocrites who successfully pursue and implement factional platforms flaunting banners of an allegedly “democratic,” classless, and virtuous SOCIALIST political system.
Indeed, despite the availability of copious volumes of historical evidence containing acts of injustice, inefficient production system and excessive abuse/mistreatment of the people, it is mystifying to continuously witness the facility by which deceitful supporters of the Brazilian Workers Party (PT) effectively depict Dilma Rousseff as the logical solution for a “democratic Brazilian republic, whereas concealing her unavoidable ties and ideological connection with the Bolivarian movement of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
The Hugo Chavez’ Connection
There is evidence that modern hard-line socialists in Latin America endeavor to portray moderate postures in order to legally secure the necessary power in order to be poised to launch a legitimate, peaceful revolution from within the presidency of his/her country, as substantiated by a relatively well-known Univision broadcast in 1998.
During this controversial interview, wearing a business suit, Mr. Hugo Chavez amiably reassured the audience that he would never endeavor to remain in power following the initial five-year term, implying respect for his country’s democratic institutions, stressing that his decision to become a presidential candidate was based solely upon the objective of “proposing a constitutional reform” designed to address specific outstanding issues of the time; concluding that he would then be “more than happy” to leave office upon termination of the first term or “even earlier”.
Likewise, calmly responding to the interviewer’s query, Mr. Chavez reaffirmed that he saw no need for nationalization of the mass media, since the sole existing state channel of the time was more than sufficient. Maintaining the bearings of a “moderate candidate from the Left,” after confirming that there was no intention of nationalizing anything whatsoever, the deceptive Hugo Chavez successfully conveyed the illusion of a rational, dependable and judicious presidential candidate who had overcome the former proclivities of a young officer who had once failed to trigger a military coup d’état.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvbdMg-X5GQ — (H. Chavez before the election)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8frIdVnFBD4 — (H. Chavez years after the election)
In October 2010, the Brazilian people is being asked by the Labor Party (PT) to elect their “recently enhanced”, more attractive presidential candidate, Ms. Dilma Rousseff who recurrently goes out of her way to imply reverence for Brazil’s democratic institutions along with respect for the opposition parties.
Interestingly, there is abundant evidence to the effect that Ms Rousseff has been frequently praised and blatantly supported by the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, who often underscores his enormous admiration for a woman he considers a “fellow South American patriot” (thus implying a theoretical co-patriotism for the future South American socialist nation, as envisioned by the São Paulo Forum).
In this connection, it should be highlighted that the Venezuelan ruler greatly admires Dilma’s “valiant” participation in the shameful, successful stratagem to kidnap an American ambassador to Brazil during the time when the country was under the government of a military regime.
While the PT candidate attempts to conceal or minimize her former status of “subversive” or “domestic terrorist”, given her direct unquestionable engagement in kidnappings, assassinations, and bank robberies, this former criminal also makes concerted effort to disguise her growing strategic ties with the totalitarian regime in Caracas (along with increasing terms of personal connection with their “ruler”), even when directly confronted about such liaison by members of the Brazilian media in national television.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe7UbzI-5KI — (H. Chavez praises Dilma Rousseff)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a22sqQ8u5_w — (Dilma eludes connection with Chavez)
Hence, it is appalling and painful to witness one’s country of birth, from afar, providing a convicted murderer and kidnapper who sponsors or defends pending legislation that includes disguised versions of censorship and maintains excellent relations with the most brutal socialist dictators of Latin America, with the opportunity to become the leader of the nation.
Unfortunately, I must question the ability of the naïve members of the Brazilian working class to pay any attention or understand the magnitude of her crimes vis-à-vis the true face of the political party Ms Rousseff represents, notwithstanding its boundless corruption, shameless deceptive tactics and obvious long-term socialist goals.
Under the circumstances, I must regrettably wrap up my assessment with the most disagreeable conclusion that unless something extraordinary emerges to unmask these horrifying hypocritical monsters, our wonderful, peaceful and happy country will join the growing list of doomed nations where oppression, censorship and fear abounds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8frIdVnFBD4 — (H. Chavez praises Dilma at conference)
Augustus Aurelianus Severus is a consultant and amateur historian, a dual citizen of Brazil and the United States of America. Augustus is a native of Rio de Janeiro and currently resides in New York City. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.