The introduction to this radio program
from the “Political School El Arado y el Mar,” published by the chavista web page Aporrea says:
“The political crimes
ordered and executed directly by the United States and its allies, such as
Israel and the Western powers, are a constant in our history. Ever since the
murder of Christ, in the hands of the Roman Empire, up to our times, there is a
long list of popular leaders that have been, openly or secretly, killed by Imperialism.
“The magnicidio [assassination] of Chávez was
one of these crimes, there is no doubt of that, it is absurd to believe
something different.
“Now, after his
death, we have entered a period of turbulence that threatens to change the
course [of the Revolution]. But this historical cycle cannot end in fascism, in
social democracy, in pacts; this would all amount to a new magnicidio. What this revolution needs is to return to the beginning
of this historical cycle and analyze the causes and consequences of the magnicidio, and to take appropriate measures
and necessary corrections."
The commentators
explain that it is unnecessary to waste time discussing the evidence that Chávez
was assassinated, since the evidence is in itself “forceful” [contundente]. Besides, says one of the commentators,
“Chávez himself already spoke about this, so really there is not much else to
argue. [Palabra de Chávez…]”
The attitude one assumes in the face of the argument
that Chávez was assassinated is what is really important: “The attitude we assume
today in the face of the assassination of Chávez is an ideological definition.”
Not to assume that Chávez was assassinated is to “refuse to fight” according to
one of the commentator.
Most interesting in
terms of the construction of a conspiracy theory: the commentators stress repeatedly
that the important issue is not to prove
that Chávez was assassinated –“we could waste several programs on that point”-
the issue is to discuss who and why he was killed. The host of the show
makes the point that, even within the chavista
leadership, the attitude assumed on
the issue reveals your political position on the revolution: failing to give
the appropriate importance to the need to investigate the death of Chávez is
indicative of a “social democratic tendency,” or worse.
(Image from Aporrea.org)