The “It all began with the magnicidio of Chávez” Radio Show

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)